TMLISTEDCLMTCalumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. ∂ 2780 Waterfront Pkwy. E. Dr., Suite 200 ∂ Indianapolis, IN 46214 ∂ www.calumetspecialty.com© 2016 Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.Calumet ∂ 2015 Annual ReportOUR LEGACY ∂ OUR VISIONOUR LEGACY OUR VISION 2015 ANNUAL REPORTTM102562_D&E_Cover_acg.indd 1-35/20/16 11:34 AM ABOUT US Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (NASDAQ: CLMT) is a fixed-distribution master limited partnership and a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North America. Calumet processes crude oil and other feedstocks into customized lubricating oils, solvents and waxes used in consumer, industrial and automotive products; produces fuel products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel; and provides oilfield services and products to customers throughout the United States. Calumet is based in Indianapolis and has a series of manufacturing facilities across the U.S.1 Financial Highlights2 Geographic Footprint4 Timeline of Our 25-Year Legacy5 Letter from Executive Vice Chairman, F. William Grube8 Our Vision, Mission, Values9 Letter from CEO, Timothy Go12 Our Long-Term Strategy14 Lower Capital Spending, Disciplined Cash Management15 Benefiting from Access to Heavy Canadian Crude Oil16 Board of Directors17 10-K Investor Information Table of ContentsRecord Performance in 2015INSIDE BACK COVERTotal Sales VolumeThousands of barrels per day11 12 13 14 1566.197.8116.5122.9126.2Total Facility ProductionThousands of barrels per day11 12 13 14 1570.996.2106.6114.1122.8Distribution Coverage Ratio11 12 13 14 151.4x1.9x0.7x0.7x0.1xAdjusted EBITDADollars in millions11 12 13 14 15$211.0$404.6$241.5$305.9$257.7INVESTORINFORMATIONCommon Unit Listing:NASDAQ Global Select MarketSymbol: CLMTIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm:Ernst & Young LLPIndianapolis, IndianaStock Transfer Agent:ComputershareInvestor Relations:Unitholders, securities analysts or portfolio managers seeking information are welcome to contact: Noel R. Ryan IIIVice President, Investor Relations & External CommunicationsCalumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. 317.328.5660 Noel.Ryan@clmt.comFor more information, please visit our website at: www.calumetspecialty.comSafe Harbor StatementCertain statements and information in this annual report may constitute "forward-looking statements." The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "plan," "intend," "foresee," "should," "would," "could" or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, which are generally not historical in nature. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effect on us. While management believes that these forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, there can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we anticipate. All comments concerning our expectations for future sales and operating results are based on our forecasts for our existing operations and do not include the potential impact of any future acquisitions. Our forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include: 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 impact of fluctuations and rapid increases or decreases in crude oil and crack spread prices, including the resulting impact on our liquidity; the results of our hedging and other risk management activities; our ability to comply with financial covenants contained in our debt instruments; the availability of, and our ability to consummate, acquisition or combination opportunities and the impact of any completed acquisitions; labor relations; our access to capital to fund expansions, acquisitions and our working capital needs and our ability to obtain debt or equity financing on satisfactory terms; successful integration and future performance of acquired assets, businesses or third-party product supply and processing relationships; our ability 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; environmental liabilities or events that are not covered by an indemnity, insurance or existing reserves; maintenance of our credit ratings and ability to receive open credit lines from our suppliers; demand for various grades of crude oil and resulting changes in pricing conditions; fluctuations in refinery capacity; our ability to access sufficient crude oil supply through long-term or month-to-month evergreen contracts and on the spot market; the effects of competition; continued creditworthiness of, and performance by, counterparties; the impact of current and future laws, rulings and governmental regulations, including guidance related to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; shortages or cost increases of power supplies, natural gas, materials or labor; hurricane or other weather interference with business operations; our ability to access the debt and equity markets; accidents or other unscheduled shutdowns; and general economic, market or business conditions. For additional information regarding known material factors that could cause our actual results to differ from our projected results, please see our filings with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our latest Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements after the date they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.101562_D&E_Cover_acg.indd 4-65/24/16 3:35 PM 20112012201320142015Sales $ 3,135 $ 4,657 $ 5,421 $ 5,791 $ 4,213Cost of sales 2,861 4,144 5,011 5,2613,618Gross profit 274 513 410 530595 Selling, general and administrative 51 103 145 248282 Transportation 94 108 143 171176 Taxes other than income taxes 6 9 14 1318 Insurance recoveries (9) - - -- Asset impairment - 2 11 3634 Other 7 6 6 1411Total operating expenses 149 227 318 483520Operating income 125 286 92 47 75Other expenses 81 79 88 160243Income tax expense (benefit) 1 1 - (1)(28)Net income (loss) $ 43 $ 206 $ 4 $ (112) $ (139)Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs 64 86 111 201 152Depreciation and amortization 63 92 118 139145Income tax expense (benefit) 1 1 - (1)(28)EBITDA (3) $ 171 $ 384 $ 233 $ 226 $ 129Hedging adjustments – non-cash 21 (1) (28) 730Amortization of turnaround costs and non-cash equity-based compensation and other items 19 21 25 3641Impairment charges - 2 11 3658Adjusted EBITDA (3) $ 211 $ 405 $ 242 $ 306 $ 258Replacement and environmental capital expenditures (1) (24) (28) (64) (32)(44)Cash interest expense (2) (45) (79) (90) (104)(98)Turnaround costs (14) (15) (69) (28)(19)Loss from unconsolidated affiliates---338 Income tax (expense) benefit (1) (1) - 128Distributable Cash Flow (3) $ 127 $ 281 $ 19 $ 146 $ 162Year Ended December 31(1) Replacement capital expenditures are defined as those capital expenditures which do not increase operating capacity or reduce operating costs and exclude turnaround costs. Environmental capital expenditures include asset additions to meet or exceed environmental and operating regulations.(2) Represents consolidated interest expense less non-cash interest expense.(3) For a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures (including EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow) to GAAP measures, please refer to our latest public disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.Note: The sum of line items and the total lines may not equal due to rounding.In millions of dollars1FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 15/20/16 12:21 PM 2Louisiana, MOCAPACITY 75 million pounds per yearFEEDSTOCK SLATEFatty acids and alcoholsPRODUCTION SLATEPolyolester-based synthetic lubricantsCotton Valley, LACAPACITY 13,500 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATELocal paraffinic crude oilPRODUCTION SLATEAliphatic solventsPrinceton, LACAPACITY 10,000 barrels per day FEEDSTOCK SLATELocal naphthenic crude oilPRODUCTION SLATENaphthenic lubricating oils, asphaltPorter, TX (Royal Purple)CAPACITY N/AFEEDSTOCK SLATEBase oilsPRODUCTION SLATESynthetic lubricating oils, gear oils, motor oilsKarns City, PACAPACITY 5,500 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATEBase oils, unfinished waxesPRODUCTION SLATEPetrolatums, white mineral oils, solvents, gelled hydrocarbons, cable fillers, petroleum sulfonatesFarmingdale, NJ (Bel-Ray)CAPACITY N/AFEEDSTOCK SLATEBase oilsPRODUCTION SLATESynthetic lubricating oils and greasesDickinson, TXCAPACITY 1,300 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATEBase oils and solventsPRODUCTION SLATEWhite mineral oils, natural petroleum sulfonates, compressor lubricantsShreveport, LA (Calumet Packaging)CAPACITY N/AFEEDSTOCK SLATEBase oils and solventsPRODUCTION SLATETruFuel, motor oils, gear oils, engine oils, automotive fluidsCalumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. owns and operates 13 specialty and fuel products facilities located across the U.S. that sell to more than 4,600 customers globally. Our specialty products facilities produce thousands of petroleum-based specialty formulations used in consumer, commercial and industrial applications. Our niche fuel products refineries produce gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and asphalt supplied to local and regional fuels markets.GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT FUEL PRODUCTS FACILITIES SPECIALTY AND FUEL PRODUCTS FACILITIES SPECIALTY PRODUCTS FACILITIES102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 25/20/16 12:21 PM 3Superior, WICAPACITY 45,000 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATECanadian Heavy, Canadian Synthetic, North Dakota Sweet (e.g. Bakken), MSWPRODUCTION SLATEUltra-low-sulfur diesel, gasoline, asphaltShreveport, LACAPACITY 60,000 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATEWTI, local crude oils from East Texas, North Louisiana, Arkansas, LLSPRODUCTION SLATEParaffinic lubricating oils, waxes, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphaltGreat Falls, MTCAPACITY 25,000 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATECanadian Heavy and Canadian Sour (e.g. Bow River)PRODUCTION SLATEUltra-low-sulfur diesel, gasoline, asphaltDickinson, NDCAPACITY 20,000 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATENorth Dakota Sweet (e.g. Bakken)PRODUCTION SLATEUltra-low-sulfur diesel, naphtha, ATBSan Antonio, TXCAPACITY 21,000 barrels per dayFEEDSTOCK SLATELocal Texas sweet crude oil (e.g. Eagle Ford)PRODUCTION SLATEUltra-low-sulfur diesel, gasoline, solvents102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 35/20/16 12:21 PM 4OUR 25-YEAR LEGACYBill Grube co-founded Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. with Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. (the current Chairman of our Board of Directors) in 1990. During Mr. Grube’s tenure as CEO from 1990 to 2015, Calumet achieved record profitability and a consistent track record of returning value to its unitholders. During our first 25 years, the Company reached numerous milestones, including completing its initial public offering, joining the Fortune 500 and completing more than a dozen acquisitions.Calumet’s initial public offering and listing on NASDAQ under the symbol CLMTBecoming a Global Specialty Products CompanyIn 2015, Mr. Grube retired as CEO and began serving as Executive Vice Chairman of the Board. Following a rigorous search process, the Board of Directors unanimously selected Tim Go as the next CEO of Calumet effective January 1, 2016.In celebrating its first 25 years in 2015, Calumet has established a legacy from which to build in 2016 and beyond.Calumet’s corporate headquarters moved to IndianapolisF.W. Grube named President and CEOCalumet purchases Montana Refining Company, Inc. in Great Falls, MTHercules Incorporated plant in Louisiana, MO purchased by CalumetAcquisition of Royal Purple, LLC Acquisition of TruSouth Oil, LLCCalumet celebrates 25th anniversaryF.W. Grube named Executive Vice Chairman; retires from CEO positionCalumet purchases first refinery, in Shreveport, LAMajor expansion project at the Shreveport refineryCalumet acquires Penreco in Karns City, PA and Dickinson, TXNuStar Energy L.P.’s refinery in San Antonio acquired by CalumetCalumet acquires New Jersey-based Bel-Ray Company, LLCTim Go becomes CEO (effective 1/1/16)Great Falls, MT refinery expansion completed and production beginsOrganic growth projects in Louisiana, MO and San Antonio, TX become operational19902006201220152001200820132016101562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 45/24/16 3:28 PM 5Tim Go becomes CEO (effective 1/1/16)Great Falls, MT refinery expansion completed and production beginsOrganic growth projects in Louisiana, MO and San Antonio, TX become operationalFELLOW INVESTORS Letter from Executive Vice Chairman, F. William GrubeI am pleased to report that the Partnership generated strong full-year Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow in 2015, excluding special items, due mainly to balanced contributions from our specialty products and fuel products segments. This performance positioned the Partnership to return more than $220 million in cash distributions to unitholders last year, which included the declaration of our 40th consecutive cash distribution in early 2016. Since our initial public offering in 2006, we have returned more than $1 billion in total capital to our unitholders, and we remain committed to positioning the Partnership to produce returns that are consistent with a stable-to-growing cash distribution, over the long term.The Year in ReviewThe global commodities markets were volatile during 2015, as the price of crude oil plummeted from more than $100 per barrel in mid-2014 to less than $40 per barrel by year-end 2015. Lower-cost producers of crude oil, such as the member countries that comprise the OPEC syndicate, continued to supply significant volumes of crude oil to the global energy markets last year, thereby forcing higher-cost producers, such as those in emerging regional shale plays here in the United States, to reduce or even shut down crude oil production. The impact on the domestic energy complex was devastating, as companies involved in the production, extraction and transportation of crude oil all suffered from sharply reduced activity.Yet, while most of the domestic energy complex was entrenched in a quagmire of daunting proportion, one energy sub-sector – petroleum refining – had an outstanding year. The decline in crude oil prices, which represents the single most significant cost for any refiner, often outpaced the decline in refined product prices, resulting in elevated refined product margins throughout most of 2015.Our specialty products segment had an excellent year, as our cost of feedstocks declined well below the blended average sales price of the more than 4,500 petroleum-based formulations we produce. Our specialty products gross profit per barrel, excluding special items, averaged $45.39 in 2015, while segment-level Adjusted EBITDA, excluding special items, increased by more than 9% from the prior-year period to $250.5 million.Our fuel products segment benefited from a combination of factors last year. Our 20,000 barrels per day of heavy fuel oils production, which is generally a “residual” product during the fuels refining process, was profitable in 2015. This result was primarily due to the prices for paving asphalt and roofing flux staying range-bound. Furthermore, lower 102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 55/20/16 12:21 PM 6crude oil prices translated into lower fuels prices at the pump, resulting in strong demand for gasoline during the year, a trend that we expect to continue into 2016. Overall, the benchmark 2/1/1 Gulf Coast crack spread, which represents a theoretical gross profit margin on each barrel of fuel products sold, increased to $18 per barrel in 2015, versus $17 per barrel in the prior 10 years. Although product margins for most U.S. refiners remain healthy by historical standards, the fuels refining margin outlook remains fluid; from our vantage point, and at such time those margins revert back to normalized levels (as they have occasion to do), we continue to believe that the winners in fuels refining will be operators with niche, inland market refineries with access to cost-advantaged crude oil and those operators that can sustain the lowest cost structure.Today, we estimate that approximately 20 to 25 percent of the crude oil processed at our refineries is heavy Canadian crude oil. Given that Canadian production of crude oil is forecasted to continue to increase significantly for the foreseeable future, inventories of Western Canadian Select (WCS) are expected to remain abundant – and cheap. In fact, last year, WCS was, on average, approximately $12 per barrel cheaper than WTI; for Calumet’s inland, niche fuels refineries that process WCS, such as our Superior, WI and Great Falls, MT facilities, this crude oil discount is a considerable competitive advantage that stands to help drive continued growth in Adjusted EBITDA within our fuel products segment over time. Harvesting Returns on Invested CapitalBeginning in 2013, we initiated three organic growth projects that, in the years that followed, would require investment of more than $600 million. In early 2016, these projects came to completion, positioning us to reap incremental cash flow from our investments. These three projects are: »A significant expansion of production capacity at our Great Falls, Montana refinery from 10,000 to 25,000 bpd; »A project at our San Antonio refinery designed to convert a portion of our diesel production to higher-margin specialty solvents; and »A doubling of production capacity at our Louisiana, Missouri esters plant Although market dynamics have shifted since we first began these projects three years ago, we currently anticipate that these projects should generate significant incremental Adjusted EBITDA on a combined, annualized basis over time. Importantly, with this organic growth campaign having reached conclusion in early 2016, we anticipate a significant decline in capital spending in 2016. Currently, we expect total capital spending, which includes growth, maintenance, turnaround and environmental spending, should be approximately $125-150 million in 2016, down from approximately $425 million in 2015. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015$45.2$77.0$66.1$59.3$65.7$82.7$132.4$201.6$210.2$224.6Calumet Has Returned More Than $1.1 Billion in Capital to Unitholders Since the IPO (Distributions in $MM)102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 65/20/16 12:21 PM 7Focused on the FutureIn 2015, I announced that I would be stepping down from day-to-day operations as CEO. Following a rigorous search process, the Board of Directors unanimously selected Tim Go as the next CEO of Calumet. With more than 25 years of independent refining experience, including 20 years at ExxonMobil and seven years at Koch Industries, Tim’s combination of exceptional leadership skills and deep operational expertise positions him as the ideal new leader for Calumet. While Calumet is an organization with a rich legacy, I am confident its best years are ahead. Our ability to focus on what we do best – specialty products refining – will continue to define us in the years that follow, guided by a dedicated, talented team of people, in addition to a General Partner that remains highly supportive of Calumet’s long-term, profitable growth. I want to thank all of our unitholders, employees, customers, communities and other stakeholders for your support in 2015 and beyond.F. William GrubeExecutive Vice ChairmanDriving Organic Growth in Our BusinessIn early 2016, Calumet completed three organic growth projects, positioning us to reap incremental cash flow from our investments. These three projects are: »Expansion of our Great Falls, Montana refinery from a throughput capacity of 10,000 bpd to 25,000 bpd. The investment provides for a new crude unit, 20,000-bpd mild hydrocracker, hydrogen plant, sulfur scrubbing units, and tankage and loading facilities. The refinery approached full production rates in early 2016. »Doubling production capacity at our Missouri esters plant to 75 million pounds per year. The project reached mechanical completion in fourth quarter 2015 and Calumet began selling products to customers in first quarter 2016. »Conversion of the ultra-low-sulfur diesel production at our San Antonio refinery to 3,000 bpd of higher-value solvents. The refinery began the sale of low aromatic solvents to both domestic and international markets during first quarter 2016.102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 75/20/16 12:21 PM 8OUR VISIONTo be the premier specialty petroleum products company in the world.SAFETY We operate our business safely and are good stewards of the environment. If it is not safe, we will not do it. We comply with all applicable laws and regulations. We recognize that protecting our people, our communities and our environment is every employee’s responsibility.INTEGRITYWe are honest and fair with each other, our customers and our stakeholders. We are committed to following our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We recognize that personal integrity requires courage and is essential to our long-term success.EXCELLENCEWe continuously improve what we do and how we do it. We exercise critical, economic thinking in all our decisions. We are fiercely competitive through disciplined, efficient and reliable operations, high-quality products and superior customer service. We adopt best practices, eliminate waste and share knowledge. We learn from our mistakes, from each other and from the best in our industry.INNOVATIONWe partner with our customers to develop new products and applications that bring value to our customers and Calumet. We are creative, reliable and flexible to deliver the products and services our customers want.ENTREPRENEURSHIPWe act as business owners. We take initiative and apply good judgment with a sense of urgency to generate the greatest value to our stakeholders.COLLABORATIONWe foster an inclusive workplace enabling each of us to fully participate and contribute. We encourage challenge at all levels of the organization to ensure sound decisions are made with the best available knowledge. We reward our employees based on their individual contributions and our overall performance.RESPECTWe treat each other with dignity and respect. We value the diversity of our employees and customers. We hold ourselves and each other accountable to our values and commitments.We build high-return niche businesses through innovation, unmatched customer service and best-in-class operations to deliver quality products that meet the unique needs and specifications of our customers. We capture attractive opportunities where others do not.OUR MISSION OUR VALUES 102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 85/20/16 12:21 PM Letter from CEO, Timothy GoLast year, Calumet celebrated its 25th anniversary. In our first quarter-century, we grew from humble beginnings as a small, single-asset refiner to become one of the most recognized and respected producers of specialty and fuels products in North America, owning and operating a portfolio of facilities that generate billions in annual sales. I am deeply honored by the opportunity to lead Calumet at this time, and I look forward to developing a world-class organization as we look toward the next quarter-century.9In order for any organization to be successful, it must first have a clear vision, supported by a mission and core values, to achieve its stated objectives. In this, my first letter to you as Calumet’s CEO (effective on January 1, 2016), I will outline the Vision, Mission and Values that will guide our people and our business.Our vision statement is “To be the premier specialty petroleum products company in the world.” From 1990 through 2011, Calumet operated almost entirely as a producer of petroleum-based specialty products, supplying customers with high-quality lubricants, waxes and solvents that generated high margins and steady cash flows for the Partnership. Today, we operate in multiple end-markets that have extended well beyond the production of specialty products to include motor fuels refining and oilfield services – two markets that have been subject to significant commodity price volatility and “boom-bust” cycles.While our prior strategy toward diversification into fuels refining and oilfield services had some success in recent years, I believe that our long-term objective should be to play to our strengths, doubling-down in stable-to-growing markets where we have proven expertise and one or more identifiable, sustainable competitive advantages. With this in mind, my senior leadership team, together with our Board of Directors, is committed to “getting back to basics” as we look ahead, shifting our strategic focus mainly toward the development, production and distribution of world-class petroleum-based specialty product formulations.Our mission statement, which describes how we will achieve this vision, states: “We build high-return niche businesses through innovation, unmatched customer service and best-in-class operations to deliver quality products that meet the unique needs and specifications of our customers. We capture attractive opportunities where others do not.”At Calumet, we will focus on three key competitive advantages that we believe set us apart from others in our industry: »Our commitment to innovation; »Our willingness to provide unmatched customer service; and »Our focus on best-in-class operations. FELLOW INVESTORS 102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 95/20/16 12:21 PM 10Calumet will embrace Excellence as a core value that drives continuous improvement in all we do, whether in operations, sales or support services.Our employees choose to be personally accountable, an ethic that carries throughout our entire organization. As Bill Grube, one of our founders and our past CEO, said, when it comes time to make a decision that can affect the business, “Are you willing to put your name on the white board?” To that end, as a companion piece to the Vision and Mission statements, we have outlined a set of values that I believe define the deeply ingrained principles that guide our actions and serve as the cultural cornerstones of how we do business at Calumet. Safety is our top priority. We operate our business safely and are good stewards of the environment. If it is not safe, we will not do it. We comply with all applicable laws and regulations. We recognize that protecting our people, our communities and our environment is every employee’s responsibility. I believe that the discipline required to drive great safety performance is the very same discipline that contributes to outstanding business performance.Integrity is a value that demands honesty and fairness with each other, our customers and our various stakeholders. We recognize that personal integrity requires courage and is essential to our long-term success. It demands we do the right thing, not only when it’s easy, but all of the time, especially when it’s tough or when no one is watching. These first two values – Safety and Integrity – describe the core culture that sets the foundation for everything we do at Calumet. Excellence is a characteristic of all great organizations that are the undisputed leaders of their industries. A commitment to Excellence means that we will continuously improve what we do and how we do it. We will exercise critical, economic thinking in all of our decisions. We will be fiercely competitive through disciplined, efficient and reliable operations, the creation of high-quality products and in the delivery of superior customer service. We will adopt best practices, eliminate waste and share knowledge. We will learn from our mistakes, from each other and from the best in our industry.Calumet will embrace Excellence as a core value that drives continuous improvement in all we do, whether in operations, sales or support services. Making the transition from a good organization to a great company requires that we take decisive action to be better. Whether through improved integration of prior acquisitions, optimization of feedstock procurement and product sales, enhanced operational efficiencies, or improved knowledge sharing, the opportunities are here – we simply need to take advantage of them. San Antonio, TX refinery102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 105/20/16 12:21 PM Timothy (Tim) Go was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., effective January 1, 2016.CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES »Lead the strategic growth and development of the Partnership »Continue to advance the Company’s commitment to operational excellence, product quality and profitable growth »Be responsible for the Company’s financial and operating performanceEXPERIENCE »More than 25 years of experience serving in executive-level roles at leading global energy companies operating in the petroleum refining and specialty products markets »Served as vice president, operations and as vice president, operations excellence at Flint Hills Resources, L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc. »Served on the Board of Directors of Koch Pipeline Company for 7 years »Previously employed at ExxonMobil Corporation for nearly 20 years, where he served in various operational leadership capacities and strategic planning rolesEDUCATION »B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at AustinBIOGRAPHY OF TIM GO11I believe that there are many “self-help” opportunities available to us in the business today, opportunities that require little or no capital spending for us to act upon. Running heavier, more cost-advantaged crudes at our fuels refineries, increasing utilization at our specialty plants and blending facilities, and growing profitable sales in both our U.S. and international markets are just a few examples. Our commitment to the values of Innovation and Entrepreneurship are not only an acknowledgement of our heritage, they are critical to our future growth. The legacy of our founders, which emphasized value creation through creativity and visionary market leadership, is alive and well at Calumet and remains central to who we are as an organization. As innovators, we partner with our customers to develop new products and applications that create value. We are creative, reliable and flexible, delivering the products and services our customers want. As entrepreneurs, we act as business owners, taking initiative and applying good judgment with a sense of urgency to generate the greatest value for our investors. Innovation and Entrepreneurship can and should happen every day at every layer of our organization. Part of taking ownership and being better means considering how we can each add value in new and different ways on a continuous basis. The values of Collaboration and Respect reflect our commitment to being an inclusive and collegial workplace that fosters behaviors that result in sound business decisions. By collaborating with each other, and fully participating and contributing, we will foster a workplace that produces and uses the best ideas. We welcome respectful challenge at all levels of the organization to ensure sound decisions are made with the best available knowledge, while rewarding our people based on their individual contributions and our overall performance. We treat each other with dignity and respect. We value the diversity of our employees and customers. We hold ourselves and each other accountable to our values and commitments.This is an exciting time for our company as together we evaluate the many opportunities that are ahead of us. I look forward to leading us during this important next chapter in the Calumet story. Thank you to all our employees for their dedication and loyalty and to you, our unitholders, for your ongoing support. Timothy GoChief Executive Officer102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 115/20/16 12:21 PM 12112TARGETED STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCEOPPORTUNISTIC 'SELF-HELP' PROJECTSFocus on optimizing the base, with asset optimization and best-in-class organizational efficiency as the new standardIdentify and capitalize on EBITDA-enhancing internal growth projects capable of generating payouts over one to two years, with low capital investment requirementsEntrench position in high-return, niche specialty markets where we are competitively advantagedThe foundation of Calumet’s long-term strategy is a commitment to excellence, which is one of our corporate values. OUR LONG-TERM STRATEGY32102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 125/20/16 12:21 PM 1313At the core of organizational excellence is our company-wide commitment to continuous improvement in all we do. With this in mind, Calumet is currently engaged in a multi-year plan to identify areas throughout the organization where we can optimize assets and reduce costs, with the objective to create a leaner, more efficient company that wins consistently in the markets we serve.This initiative, which was launched in early 2016 under the guidance of our new CEO, Tim Go, has made early progress by identifying multiple low- or no-cost opportunities within our existing asset base to extract unrealized value. Going forward, Calumet will seek to invest in small-scale, high-return projects that carry one- to three-year paybacks on investment. Although Calumet has a long history of being acquisitive, we chose to pause our acquisition efforts during 2015, focusing instead on further improving upon the assets we had purchased in recent years. We continue to see numerous opportunities for expansion within the specialty products markets; however, given current market conditions, we remain mindful of preserving liquidity and maintaining a balanced capital structure. Longer term, we will look to expand our specialty products asset base into new international markets, as we seek to establish product distribution footholds in emerging geographies where there is proven demand for our products, yet where we have not been a dominant market player to date.Focus on optimizing the base, with asset optimization and best-in-class organizational efficiency as the new standardFeedstock Optimization Process increased volumes of cost-advantaged heavy crude oil and intermediate streams.Example: Process more heavy Canadian crude oil at Superior refinery and produce more specialty asphalt.Yield Improvement Upgrade unfinished feedstock streams between refineries to increase the value of the end-product sold to customers.Example: Upgrade low-value Shreveport waxy gas-oil stream into high-value finished specialty wax at Karns City.Operating Efficiency Operate assets at a higher utilization to achieve improved economies of scale; increase supply chain optimization across the portfolio.Example: Optimize transportation management across the entire portfolio of facilities to reduce logistics costs.Product UpgradeConvert lower-margin fuel products streams to higher-margin specialty products.Example: Grow TruFuel business, which converts commoditized gasoline into specialty gasoline in a can.SHREVEPORT, LA REFINERY Product UpgradesWe are planning to significantly upgrade our de-asphalting capacity at the refinery, which would allow us to process more heavy crude oil while producing more, higher-margin specialty products.SUPERIOR, WI REFINERY Feedstock UpgradesWe are planning to increase the feedstock slate to as much as 100% WCS-linked, thereby capturing increased cost advantage given a structural dislocation between WTI and WCS.Identify and capitalize on EBITDA-enhancing internal growth projects capable of generating payouts over one to two years, with low capital investment requirements102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 135/20/16 12:21 PM 14LOWER CAPITAL SPENDING, DISCIPLINED CASH MANAGEMENTDuring the period between 2013 and 2015, our annual capital spending averaged approximately $380 million per year, approximately 60% of which was related to investments in growth projects that reached completion in early 2016. For 2016, we have forecasted a sharp decline in capital spending when compared to the past three years, turning our attention toward cash conservation and efforts to maintain a disciplined capital structure.$450$425$125-$150201420152016 (est.)Total Capital Spending Expected to Decline by More Than 60% in 2016($MM)Debt to LTM Adjusted EBITDA (Leverage) Ratio5.6x4.7x2.2x12/31/1412/31/1312/31/127.0x12/31/15102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 145/20/16 12:21 PM 15Superior RefineryCANADAGreat Falls RefineryLOWER CAPITAL SPENDING, DISCIPLINED CASH MANAGEMENTBENEFITING FROM ACCESS TO HEAVY CANADIAN CRUDE OILA key part of our fuels refining value proposition is our ability to lower our feedstock cost by processing increased volumes of heavy Canadian crude oil at our Superior and Montana refineries. While many crude oil differentials narrowed during 2015, we continued to see a distinct structural dislocation between the price of Canadian heavy crude oil (“WCS”), and light, sweet crude oil such as West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”). We expect this differential to continue to be structurally advantaged over the next several years, given a combination of continued production growth out of the Canadian oil sands, coupled with limited pipeline offtake capacity from the region.As we continue to increase our WCS exposure within our refining system, we anticipate significant raw material cost savings, subject to market conditions. The primary drivers of our ability to take advantage of heavy Canadian crude oil include: »WCS-WTI spread has remained dislocated, as Canadian production outpaces offtake capacity; »Canadian production is forecasted to increase more than 10% between 2015 and 2020; and »The Superior and Montana refineries’ locations near the Canadian border enable us to capture transportation and logistics cost savings.Canadian Crude Oil Production Continues to Outpace Pipeline Offtake Capacity (MBPD)*($15.69)($22.01)($24.67)($19.22)($11.94)($11.49)20112012201320142015YTD 2016**WCS-WTI Crude Differential Remains Wide to the Benefit of Calumet's Superior, WI and Great Falls, MT Fuels Refineries (Differential Per Barrel)*Source: Goldman Sachs**As of March 4, 20162014 2015 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E14% Increase in Production Expected Between 2014 and 2020102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 155/20/16 12:21 PM 16Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.Chairman of the Board Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Managing Trustee The Heritage GroupF. William GrubeExecutive Vice Chairman of the Board Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.BOARD OF DIRECTORSGeorge C. Morris III President Morris Energy Advisors, Inc.James S. CarterRetired U.S. Regional Director ExxonMobil Fuels Company Robert E. FunkRetired Vice President of Corporate Planning and Economics Citgo Petroleum Corp. Amy M. SchumacherPresident The Heritage Group Chief Executive Officer Monument ChemicalDaniel J. SajkowskiExecutive Vice President, Growth and New Ventures The Heritage Group102562_D&E_Text_acg.indd 165/20/16 12:21 PM UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
OR
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF 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
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
35-1811116
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
2780 Waterfront Parkway East Drive
Suite 200
Indianapolis, Indiana 46214
(317) 328-5660
(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
Title of Each Class
Common units representing limited partner interests
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
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
No
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
No
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
No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every
Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes
No
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 registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by
reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a
smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”
in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
Non-accelerated filer
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Accelerated filer
Smaller reporting company
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes
The aggregate market value of the common units held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $1,514.9 million
on June 30, 2015, based on $25.46 per unit, the closing price of the common units as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market on such date.
No
On February 29, 2016, there were 75,884,400 common units outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
NONE.
Page
3
27
46
47
47
48
49
55
83
88
154
154
154
155
159
182
185
187
189
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
FORM 10-K — 2015 ANNUAL REPORT
Table of Contents
PART I
Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 3.
Unresolved Staff Comments
Legal Proceedings
Risk Factors
Item 4.
Mine Safety Disclosures
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
PART II
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of
Equity Securities
Selected Financial Data
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
Other Information
PART III
Directors, Executive Officers of Our General Partner and Corporate Governance
Executive and Director Compensation
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Unitholder
Matters
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence
Principal Accounting Fees and Services
Item 15.
Exhibits
PART IV
1
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) includes certain “forward-looking statements.” These statements
can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology including “may,” “intend,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,”
“estimate,” “continue,” or other similar words. The statements regarding (i) estimated capital expenditures as a result of required
audits or required operational changes or other environmental and regulatory liabilities, (ii) estimated capital expenditures as a
result of our planned organic growth projects and estimated annual EBITDA contributions from such projects, (iii) our anticipated
levels of, use and effectiveness of derivatives to mitigate our exposure to crude oil price changes, natural gas price changes and
fuel products price changes, (iv) estimated costs of complying with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Renewable
Fuel Standard, including the prices paid for Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”), (v) our ability to meet our financial
commitments, minimum quarterly distributions to our unitholders, debt service obligations, debt instrument covenants,
contingencies and anticipated capital expenditures and (vi) our access to capital to fund capital expenditures and our working
capital needs and our ability to obtain debt or equity financing on satisfactory terms, as well as other matters discussed in this
Annual Report that are not purely historical data, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on
our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effect on us. While management believes
that these forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, there can be no assurance that future developments
affecting us will be those that we anticipate. All comments concerning our expectations for future sales and operating results are
based on our forecasts for our existing operations and do not include the potential impact of any future acquisitions. Our forward-
looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions that could
cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Known material
factors that could cause our actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements are those described in Part I,
Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements,
which speak only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements
after the date they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
References in this Annual Report to “Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,” “Calumet,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,”
“us” or like terms refer to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries. References to “Predecessor” in this Annual
Report refer to Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and its subsidiaries, the assets and liabilities of which were contributed
to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries upon the completion of our initial public offering in 2006.
References in this Annual Report to “our general partner” refer to Calumet GP, LLC, the general partner of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P.
2
Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties
Overview
PART I
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North America. We are
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, and own specialty and fuel products facilities primarily located in northwest Louisiana,
northwest Wisconsin, northern Montana, western Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, eastern Missouri and North Dakota. We own
and lease oilfield services locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico,
New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio. We own and lease additional facilities, primarily related to production and
distribution of specialty, fuel and oilfield services products, throughout the United States (“U.S.”). Our business is organized into
three segments: specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services. In our specialty products segment, we process crude oil
and other feedstocks into a wide variety of customized lubricating oils, white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums 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. We also blend and market specialty products through our Royal Purple, Bel-
Ray, TruFuel and Quantum brands. In our fuel products segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel and fuel-related
products, including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt and heavy fuel oils, and from time to time resell purchased crude oil to third
party customers. Our oilfield services segment manufactures and markets products and provides oilfield services including drilling
fluids, completion fluids and solids control services to the oil and gas exploration industry throughout the U.S. For the year ended
December 31, 2015, approximately 32.5% of our sales and 62.3% of our gross profit were generated from our specialty products
segment, approximately 60.8% of our sales and 28.0% of our gross profit were generated from our fuel products segment and
approximately 6.7% of our sales and 9.7% of our gross profit were generated from our oilfield services segment.
Our Primary Operating Assets
Our primary operating assets consist of:
Refinery/Facility
Location
Year Acquired
Current Feedstock
Throughput
Capacity in barrels
per day (“bpd”)
Shreveport
Superior
Montana
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Montana
San Antonio
Texas
Cotton Valley
Louisiana
Princeton
Louisiana
Karns City
Pennsylvania
Dickinson
Texas
Royal Purple
Texas
Bel-Ray
New Jersey
Missouri
Missouri
2001
2011
2012
2013
1995
1990
2008
2008
2012
2013
2012
60,000
45,000
25,000
21,000
13,500
10,000
5,500
1,300
N/A
N/A
N/A
Products
Specialty lubricating oils and waxes, gasoline, diesel,
jet fuel and asphalt
Gasoline, diesel, asphalt and heavy fuel oils
Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and asphalt
Diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, other fuel products and
solvents
Specialty solvents used principally in the manufacture
of paints, cleaners, automotive products and drilling
fluids
Specialty lubricating oils, including process oils, base
oils, transformer oils and refrigeration oils, and asphalt
White mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums, gelled
hydrocarbons, cable fillers and natural petroleum
sulfonates
White mineral oils, compressor lubricants, natural
petroleum sulfonates and biodiesel
Specialty products including premium industrial and
consumer synthetic lubricants
Specialty products including premium industrial and
consumer synthetic lubricants and greases
Specialty products
synthetic lubricants
including polyolester-based
Drilling and Oilfield Services Assets. Anchor Drilling Fluids and Anchor Oilfield Services (as defined below) manufacture
and market specialty products and provide oilfield services including drilling fluids, completion fluids and solids control services
to the oil and gas exploration industry. We design, manufacture and package these specialty products at our locations in Texas,
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and
Ohio. These locations serve the great majority of major onshore oil fields in the U.S.
3
Crude Oil Logistics Assets. We own and operate seven crude oil loading facilities and related assets in North Dakota and
Montana, which provide us the ability to transport crude oil directly from the point of lease, into our crude oil loading facilities
and then onto the Enbridge Pipeline System (“Enbridge Pipeline”) where it can be routed to our Superior refinery and/or third
party customers.
Storage, Distribution and Logistics Assets. We own and operate product terminals in Burnham, Illinois (“Burnham”),
Rhinelander, Wisconsin (“Rhinelander”), Crookston, Minnesota (“Crookston”), and Proctor, Minnesota (“Duluth”), with aggregate
storage capacities of approximately 150,000, 166,000, 156,000 and 200,000 barrels, respectively. These terminals, as well as
additional owned and leased facilities throughout the U.S., facilitate the distribution of products in the Upper Midwest, East Coast,
West Coast and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S. and Canada.
We also use approximately 2,900 leased railcars to receive crude oil or distribute our products throughout the U.S. and
Canada. In total, we have approximately 14.1 million barrels of aggregate storage capacity at our facilities and leased storage
locations.
Business Strategies
Our management team is dedicated to improving our operations by executing the following strategies:
• Concentrate on Stable Cash Flows. We intend to continue to focus on operating assets and businesses that generate stable
cash flows over time. Approximately 32.5% of our sales and 62.3% of our gross profit in 2015 were generated by the
sale of specialty products, a segment of our business which is characterized by stable customer relationships due to our
customers’ requirements for the highly specialized products we provide. In addition, we manage our exposure to crude
oil price fluctuations in this segment by passing on incremental feedstock costs to our specialty products customers. In
our fuel products segment, which accounted for 60.8% of our sales and 28.0% of our gross profit in 2015, we seek to
mitigate our exposure to fuel products margin volatility by maintaining a longer-term fuel products hedging program.
Our entry into the oilfield services industry, which accounted for 6.7% of our sales and 9.7% of our gross profit in 2015,
also contributes to our diversity of cash flows. In addition, our recent acquisitions of various refineries located in different
geographic regions provides for diversity of cash flows based on the refining margin environment in each such region.
We believe the diversity of our operating assets and products, our broad customer base and our hedging activities help
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 are incentivized 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 specialty products like ours. We intend to continue to assist our existing customers in their
efforts to expand their product offerings, as well as marketing specialty product formulations and services to new customers.
By striving to maintain our long-term relationships with our broad base of existing customers and by adding new customers,
we seek to limit our dependence on any one portion of our customer base.
• Enhance Profitability of Our Existing Assets. We 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 maximize the profitability of our acquired assets, such as: (1) the enhancement at our Superior refinery
completed in November 2012, which enables the refinery to ship crude oil by railcar to our other facilities as well as third
party customers, (2) the enhancements at our San Antonio refinery completed in December 2013 allowed us to blend
finished gasoline and increased its production capacity from 14,500 bpd to 18,000 bpd, (3) the enhancements at our San
Antonio refinery completed in December 2015 allowed us to take a portion of the refinery’s ultra-low sulfur diesel and
jet fuel production and convert it into up to 3,000 bpd of higher margin solvents, (4) the more than doubling of esters
production capacity at our Missouri facility completed in December 2015 and (5) the increase of production capacity at
our Montana refinery from 10,000 bpd to 25,000 bpd, completed in February 2016. We intend to further increase the
profitability of our existing asset base through various measures which may 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. We also continue to focus on optimizing current operations through improving
reliability, product quality enhancements, product yield improvements and energy saving initiatives.
• Pursue Strategic and Complementary Acquisitions. Our management team has demonstrated the ability to identify
opportunities to acquire assets and product lines where we can enhance operations and improve profitability. In the future,
we intend to continue to consider strategic acquisitions of assets or agreements with third parties that offer the opportunity
for operational efficiencies, the potential for increased utilization and expansion of facilities, or the expansion of product
offerings in each of our specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segments. In addition, we may pursue
selected acquisitions in new geographic or product areas to the extent we perceive similar opportunities. For example,
since 2011 we have completed the following acquisitions that we believe significantly enhance and diversify our existing
specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segments:
4
• Superior, Wisconsin, refinery (“Superior”) — a refinery that produces and sells gasoline, diesel, asphalt and heavy
fuel oils acquired in September 2011 (“Superior Acquisition”).
• Calumet Packaging, LLC (“Calumet Packaging”) — formerly known as TruSouth Oil, LLC, a specialty petroleum
packaging and distribution company acquired in January 2012.
• Louisiana, Missouri, (“Missouri”) facility — an aviation and refrigerant synthetic lubricants business acquired in
January 2012.
• Royal Purple, Inc. (“Royal Purple”) — a leading independent formulator and marketer of specialty synthetic lubricants
and greases acquired in July 2012.
• Montana Refining Company, Inc. (“Montana”) — a refinery that produces and sells gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and
asphalt products acquired in October 2012.
• San Antonio, Texas, refinery (“San Antonio”) — a refinery that produces and sells diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, other fuel
products and solvents acquired in January 2013.
• Crude oil logistics assets — crude oil loading facilities and related assets in North Dakota and Montana acquired in
August 2013.
• Bel-Ray Company, LLC (“Bel-Ray”) — a manufacturer and global distributor of high-performance synthetic lubricants
and greases acquired in December 2013.
• United Petroleum, LLC assets (“United Petroleum”) — a marketer and distributor of high performance lubricants
acquired in February 2014.
• ADF Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. (“Anchor Drilling Fluids”) — an
independent provider and marketer of drilling fluids and completion fluids to the oil and gas exploration industry
acquired in March 2014.
• Specialty Oilfield Solutions, Ltd. assets (“Anchor Oilfield Services”) — a full-service drilling fluids and solids control
company with primary operations in the Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Utica shale formations acquired from Specialty
Oilfield Services, Ltd. in August 2014.
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 approximately 4,500 specialty
products. We believe that our ability to provide our customers with a more diverse selection of products than most of our
competitors 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 in our ability to produce numerous specialty products is our ability to ship products between our
facilities for product upgrading in order to meet customer specifications.
• 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 more than 4,600
active accounts and we are continually seeking new customers. No single customer accounted for more than 10% of our
consolidated sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
• Our Facilities Have Advanced Technology. Our facilities are equipped with advanced, flexible technology that allows us
to produce high-grade specialty products and to produce fuel products that comply with low sulfur fuel regulations. For
example, our fuel products refineries have the capability to make ultra-low sulfur diesel and gasoline that meet federally
mandated low sulfur standards and the Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule II standards (“MSAT II Standards”) set by the EPA
requiring the reduction of benzene levels in gasoline. 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 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 and
services. Our senior management team has an average of over 25 years of industry experience. Our team’s extensive
experience and contacts within the refining industry provide a strong foundation and focus for managing and enhancing
our operations, accessing strategic acquisition opportunities and constructing and enhancing the profitability of new assets.
5
Ongoing Acquisition Activities
Consistent with our business growth strategy, we are continuously engaged in discussions with potential sellers regarding
the possible purchase of assets and operations that are strategic and complementary to our existing operations. These acquisition
efforts may involve participation by us in processes that have been made public and involve a number of potential buyers, commonly
referred to as “auction” processes, as well as situations in which we believe we are the only potential buyer or one of a limited
number of potential buyers in negotiations with the potential seller. These acquisition efforts often involve assets and operations
which, if acquired, could have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations and require special financing.
We typically do not announce a transaction until we have executed a definitive acquisition agreement. However, in certain
cases in order to protect our business interests or for other reasons, we may defer public announcement of an acquisition until
closing or a later date. Past experience has demonstrated that discussions and negotiations regarding a potential acquisition can
advance or terminate in a short period of time. Moreover, the closing of any transaction for which we have entered into a definitive
acquisition agreement will be subject to customary and other closing conditions, which may not ultimately be satisfied or waived.
Accordingly, we can give no assurance that our current or future acquisition efforts will be successful. Although we expect the
acquisitions we make to be accretive in the long term, we can provide no assurance that our expectations will ultimately be realized.
Partnership Structure and Management
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership formed on September 27, 2005. Our general
partner is Calumet GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. As of February 29, 2016, we have 75,884,400 common units
and 1,548,660 general partner units outstanding. Our general partner owns 2% of the Company and all incentive distribution rights
and has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. For more information about our general
partner’s board of directors and executive officers, please read Part III, Item 10 “Directors, Executive Officers of Our General
Partner and Corporate Governance.”
6
Our Operating Assets and Contractual Arrangements
General
The following table sets forth information about our combined operations, excluding the results of operations of our oilfield
services segment. Facility production volume differs from sales volume due to changes in inventories and the sale of purchased
fuel product blendstocks, such as ethanol and biodiesel, and the resale of crude oil in our fuel products segment. The table includes
the results of operations at our San Antonio refinery commencing January 2, 2013, Bel-Ray facility commencing December 10,
2013 and United Petroleum assets commencing February 28, 2014:
Total sales volume (1)
Total feedstock runs (2)
Facility production: (3)
Specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products (4)
Other
Total specialty products
Fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other
Total fuel products
Total facility production (3)
Year Ended December 31,
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
% Change
2014
2013
% Change
(In bpd)
(In bpd)
126,216
123,051
122,852
117,427
2.7 % 122,852
4.8 % 117,427
116,477
110,237
5.5 %
6.5 %
11,836
13,247
(10.7)%
13,325
11,836
7,942
1,460
1,584
1,355
8,934
1,510
1,754
1,829
12.6 %
(11.1)%
(3.3)%
(9.7)%
(25.9)%
8,934
1,510
1,754
1,829
8,759
1,443
1,481
2,192
25,666
25,863
(0.8)%
25,863
27,122
37,691
30,204
5,157
24,077
97,129
34,221
27,074
4,799
22,189
88,283
10.1 %
11.6 %
7.5 %
8.5 %
10.0 %
34,221
27,074
4,799
22,189
88,283
29,374
26,015
4,105
19,976
79,470
122,795
114,146
7.6 % 114,146
106,592
2.0 %
4.6 %
18.4 %
(16.6)%
(4.6)%
16.5 %
4.1 %
16.9 %
11.1 %
11.1 %
7.1 %
(1) Total sales volume includes sales from the production at our facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements, sales of inventories and the resale of crude oil to third party customers. Total sales volume
includes the sale of purchased fuel product blendstocks, such as ethanol and biodiesel, as components of finished fuel products
in our fuel products segment sales.
(2) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
(3) Total facility production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and at certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
The difference between total facility production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the
input of feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
(4) Represents production of packaged and synthetic specialty products, including the products from the Royal Purple, Bel-Ray,
Calumet Packaging and Missouri facilities.
7
The following table sets forth information about our combined sales of principal products and services by segment. The
table includes the results of operations at our San Antonio refinery commencing January 2, 2013, at our Bel-Ray facility commencing
December 10, 2013, United Petroleum assets commencing February 28, 2014, at Anchor Drilling Fluids commencing March 31,
2014, and at Anchor Oilfield Services commencing August 1, 2014:
Sales of specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products (1)
Other (2)
Total
Sales of fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other (3)
Total
Sales of oilfield services:
Consolidated sales
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
(In millions) % of Sales
(In millions) % of Sales
(In millions) % of Sales
$
$
575.6
302.0
136.9
316.6
36.7
1,367.8
1,047.1
894.8
149.6
471.0
2,562.5
282.5
4,212.8
13.7% $
7.2%
3.2%
7.5%
0.9%
32.5%
24.9%
21.2%
3.6%
11.1%
60.8%
6.7%
100.0% $
748.4
485.2
144.1
313.5
38.0
1,729.2
1,443.1
1,197.4
199.3
853.6
3,693.4
368.5
5,791.1
12.9% $
8.4%
2.5%
5.4%
0.7%
29.9%
24.9%
20.7%
3.4%
14.7%
63.7%
6.4%
100.0% $
848.8
511.7
141.0
233.6
39.8
1,774.9
1,409.4
1,259.2
191.4
786.5
3,646.5
—
5,421.4
15.7%
9.4%
2.6%
4.3%
0.7%
32.7%
26.0%
23.3%
3.5%
14.5%
67.3%
—
100.0%
(1) Represents packaged and synthetic specialty products at the Royal Purple, Bel-Ray, Calumet Packaging and Missouri facilities.
(2) Represents by-products, including fuels and asphalt, produced in connection with the production of specialty products at the
Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries and Dickinson and Karns City facilities.
(3) Represents asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other products produced in connection with the production of fuels at the Shreveport,
Superior, San Antonio and Montana refineries and crude oil sales from the Superior and San Antonio refineries to third party
customers.
Please read Note 17 “Segments and Related Information” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”
of this Annual Report for additional financial information about each of our segments and the geographic areas in which we conduct
business.
Shreveport Refinery
The Shreveport refinery, located on a 240 acre site in Shreveport, Louisiana (“Shreveport”), currently has aggregate crude
oil throughput capacity of 60,000 bpd and processes paraffinic crude oil and associated feedstocks into fuel products, paraffinic
lubricating oils, waxes, asphalt and by-products.
The Shreveport refinery consists of seventeen major processing units including hydrotreating, catalytic reforming and
dewaxing units and approximately 3.3 million barrels of storage capacity in 130 storage tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities. Since our acquisition of the Shreveport refinery in 2001, we have expanded the refinery’s capabilities by
adding additional processing and blending facilities, adding a second reactor to the high pressure hydrotreater, resuming production
of gasoline, diesel and other fuel products and adding both 18,000 bpd of crude oil throughput capacity and the capability to run
up to 25,000 bpd of sour crude oil with an expansion project completed in May 2008.
8
The following table sets forth historical information about production at our Shreveport refinery:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
Total refinery production (2) (3)
Shreveport Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In bpd)
2013
60,000
40,726
41,588
60,000
35,140
34,189
60,000
36,178
34,832
(1) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our Shreveport refinery.
Total feedstock runs do not include certain interplant feedstocks supplied by our Cotton Valley, Princeton and San Antonio
refineries.
(2) Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of
the time lag between the input of feedstocks and production of finished products and volume loss.
(3) Total refinery production includes certain interplant feedstock supplied to our Cotton Valley, Princeton and San Antonio
refineries and Karns City facility.
The Shreveport refinery has a flexible operational configuration and operating personnel that facilitate development of new
product opportunities. Product mix may fluctuate 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 were utilized as a part of the Shreveport refinery expansion project completed in 2008.
The Shreveport refinery receives crude oil via tank truck, railcar and a common carrier pipeline system that is operated by
a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (“Plains”) and is connected to the Shreveport refinery’s facilities. The Plains
pipeline system delivers local supplies of crude oil and condensates from north Louisiana and east Texas. In November 2012, we
completed an expansion project at our Superior refinery, which enabled the refinery to ship crude oil by railcar to our Shreveport
refinery as well as to third party customers. Crude oil is also purchased from various suppliers, including local producers, who
deliver crude oil to the Shreveport refinery via tank truck.
The Shreveport refinery also has direct pipeline access to the Enterprise Products Partners L.P. pipeline (“TEPPCO pipeline”),
on which it can ship certain grades of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Further, the refinery 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 U.S. through both truck and railcar service.
Superior Refinery
The Superior refinery is located on a 245 acre site, with an additional 430 acres owned around the existing refinery, in
Superior, Wisconsin. The Superior refinery currently has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of 45,000 bpd and processes
light and heavy crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and western Canada into fuel products and asphalt.
The Superior refinery consists of fourteen major processing units including hydrotreating, catalytic reforming, fluid catalytic
cracking and alkylation units and approximately 3.2 million barrels of storage capacity in 76 tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities.
The following table sets forth historical information about production at our Superior refinery:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
Total refinery production (2)
Superior Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In bpd)
2013
45,000
36,270
35,916
45,000
36,736
35,712
45,000
32,821
31,757
9
(1) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our Superior refinery.
(2) Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of fuel products yielded from processing crude oil. The difference
between total refinery production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of feedstocks
and the production of finished products and volume loss.
The Superior refinery has a flexible operational configuration and operating personnel that facilitate development of new
product opportunities. Product mix may fluctuate from one period to the next to capture market opportunities. Currently the Superior
refinery produces gasoline, diesel, asphalt and heavy fuel oils.
Finished fuel products produced at the Superior refinery are sold through the Superior refinery truck rack, several Magellan
pipeline terminals in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah and through our Duluth terminal. The
Superior wholesale fuel business also sells gasoline wholesale to Calumet branded gas stations located throughout the Upper
Midwest (including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan), which are owned and operated by independent franchisees. The Superior
refinery ships finished fuel products by railcar, truck and pipeline service. Asphalt products produced at the Superior refinery are
shipped by railcar and truck service and are sold through our terminals in Rhinelander and Crookston and through other leased
terminals in the U.S.
Finished fuel products sales are primarily made through spot agreements and short-term contracts. Asphalt is primarily sold
through spot agreements and short-term contracts with customers primarily located in and around the Upper Midwest, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and New York.
The Superior refinery receives crude oil via pipeline. The Enbridge Pipeline delivers crude oil to the Superior refinery and
is adjacent to one of the Enbridge Pipeline’s first crude oil holding facilities after crossing the Canadian border into the U.S.,
providing reliable access to high quality crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and from western Canada.
The refinery receives approximately 47% of its daily crude oil requirements under a crude oil purchase agreement (the “BP Purchase
Agreement”) with BP Products North America Inc. (“BP”). For more information about the BP Purchase Agreement, please read
the information provided under Note 6 “Commitments and Contingencies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report. In November 2012, the Superior refinery completed an expansion project, which
enables the refinery to ship crude oil by railcar to our Shreveport refinery as well as to third party customers.
Montana Refinery
The Montana refinery, located on an 86 acre site in Great Falls, Montana, currently has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of 25,000 bpd and processes light and heavy crude oil from Canada into fuel and asphalt products. In February 2016, we
completed an expansion project which added 15,000 bpd of feedstock throughput capacity to the refinery.
The Montana refinery consists of fifteen major processing units including hydrotreating, catalytic reforming, hydrocracking,
fluid catalytic cracking and alkylation units, approximately 1.1 million barrels of storage capacity in 75 tanks and related loading
and unloading facilities and utilities.
The following table sets forth historical information about production at the Montana refinery:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
Total refinery production (2)
Montana Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In bpd)
2013
10,000
10,307
10,525
10,000
10,201
10,274
10,000
9,290
9,015
(1) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our Montana refinery.
(2) Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of
the time lag between the input of feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
Currently, the Montana refinery produces gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and asphalt products. The Montana refinery ships finished
fuel and asphalt products by railcar and truck service. Finished fuel and asphalt products sales are primarily made through spot
agreements and short-term contracts.
The Montana refinery purchases crude oil from various suppliers and receives crude oil by pipeline through the Front Range
Pipeline via the Bow River Pipeline in Canada, providing reliable access to high quality crude oil from western Canada.
10
In February 2016, we completed an expansion project that increased production capacity at our Montana refinery by 15,000
bpd to 25,000 bpd. This project allows us to capitalize on local access to cost-advantaged Bow River crude oil, while producing
additional fuels and refined products for delivery into the regional market. The scope of this project included the installation of
a new crude unit that can process up to 25,000 bpd of crude oil and other feedstocks, a hydrogen plant and a 20,000 bpd mild
hydrocracker.
San Antonio Refinery
The San Antonio refinery, located on a 32 acre site in San Antonio, Texas, has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of
21,000 bpd and processes light crude oil from south Texas, including the Eagle Ford shale formation, into a variety of transportation
fuels, petrochemical and refinery feedstocks, and aliphatic solvents. The San Antonio refinery consists of six major processing
units including crude fractionation, naphtha hydrotreating, catalytic reforming, distillate hydrotreating, aromatic saturation and
specialty fractionation. The refinery has approximately 200,000 barrels of storage capacity in 65 tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities.
Currently, the San Antonio refinery produces diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, other fuel products and a variety of aliphatic solvents.
The San Antonio refinery is compliant with federal regulations for ultra-low sulfur diesel. The San Antonio refinery ships products
by railcar and truck service. Product sales are primarily made through spot agreements and short-term contracts. The San Antonio
refinery purchases crude oil and intermediate products from various suppliers and receives crude oil by pipeline originating from
its crude oil terminal in Elmendorf, Texas (“Elmendorf”), providing reliable access to high quality crude oil from Texas, primarily
the Eagle Ford shale formation. The San Antonio refinery has a 20-year agreement with TexStar Midstream Logistics, L.P.
(“TexStar”) under which TexStar operates the Karnes North Pipeline System (“KNPS”), which transports crude oil from Karnes
City, Texas, to Elmendorf. Currently, the San Antonio refinery receives at least 12,000 bpd of crude oil at the refinery through the
KNPS-Elmendorf terminal supply route. Elmendorf has aggregate storage capacity of approximately 200,000 barrels.
Since acquiring the San Antonio refinery, we have expanded the refinery’s capabilities by adding 6,500 bpd of crude oil
throughput capacity and adding additional processing and blending facilities which allow the San Antonio refinery to blend up to
6,000 bpd of finished gasoline. Additionally, we completed a project in December 2015 that allows us to take a portion of the San
Antonio refinery’s diesel and jet fuel production and convert it into up to 3,000 bpd of higher margin solvent products that meet
customer requirements for low aromatic content.
The following table sets forth historical information at our San Antonio refinery since our acquisition on January 2, 2013:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
Total refinery production (2)
San Antonio Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In bpd)
2013
21,000
16,442
15,708
17,500
14,617
13,541
17,500
10,908
10,381
(1) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our San Antonio refinery
from January 2, 2013, through December 31, 2015.
(2) Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks from January 2, 2013, through December 31, 2015. The difference between total refinery production
and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of feedstocks and the production of finished
products and volume loss.
Cotton Valley Refinery
The Cotton Valley refinery, located on a 77 acre site in Cotton Valley, Louisiana (“Cotton Valley”), currently has aggregate
crude oil throughput capacity of 13,500 bpd, hydrotreating capacity of 6,200 bpd and processes crude oil into specialty solvents
and residual fuel oil. The residual fuel oil is an important feedstock for the production of specialty products at our Shreveport
refinery. We believe the Cotton Valley refinery produces the most complete, single-facility line of paraffinic solvents in the U.S.
11
The Cotton Valley refinery 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.
Since our acquisition of the Cotton Valley refinery in 1995, we have expanded the refinery’s capabilities by installing a hydrotreater
that removes aromatics, increased the crude unit processing capability to 13,500 bpd and reconfigured the refinery’s 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:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
Total refinery production (2) (3)
Cotton Valley Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In bpd)
2013
13,500
6,413
6,103
13,500
6,580
6,544
13,500
5,667
6,678
(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 feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
(3) Total refinery production includes certain interplant feedstocks supplied to our Shreveport refinery.
The Cotton Valley refinery has a flexible operational configuration and operating personnel that facilitate development of
new product opportunities. Product mix may fluctuate from one period to the next to capture market opportunities, which allows
us to respond to market changes and customer demands by modifying the refinery’s product mix. The reconfigured fractionation
train also allows the refinery to satisfy demand fluctuations efficiently without large finished product inventory requirements.
The Cotton Valley refinery receives crude oil via tank truck. The Cotton Valley refinery’s feedstock is primarily low sulfur
and paraffinic crude oil originating from north Louisiana and is purchased from various marketers and gatherers. In addition, the
Cotton Valley refinery receives interplant feedstocks for solvent production from the Shreveport refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery
ships finished products by both truck and railcar service.
Princeton Refinery
The Princeton refinery, located on a 208 acre site in Princeton, Louisiana (“Princeton”), currently has aggregate crude oil
throughput capacity of 10,000 bpd and processes naphthenic crude oil into lubricating oils, asphalt and feedstock for the Shreveport
refinery for further processing into ultra-low sulfur diesel. The asphalt produced may be further processed or blended for coating
and roofing product applications at the Princeton refinery or transported to the Shreveport refinery for further processing into
bright stock.
The Princeton refinery 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 hydrotreater’s capacity to 7,000 bpd
and upgraded the refinery’s fractionation unit, which has enabled us to produce higher value specialty products.
The following table sets forth historical information about production at our Princeton refinery:
Crude oil throughput capacity
Total feedstock runs (1)
Total refinery production (1) (2)
Princeton Refinery
Year Ended December 31,
2014
(In bpd)
10,000
6,669
5,420
2015
10,000
7,105
5,851
2013
10,000
6,464
5,313
(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 feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
12
(2) Total refinery production includes certain interplant feedstocks supplied to our Shreveport refinery.
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 refinery’s processing capabilities consist of atmospheric
and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, asphalt oxidation processing and clay/acid treating. In addition, we have the necessary
tankage and technology to process our asphalt into higher value product applications such as coatings, road paving and emulsions
for road paving and specialty applications.
The Princeton refinery receives crude oil via tank truck, railcar and the Plains pipeline system. Its crude oil supply primarily
originates from east Texas and north Louisiana, purchased directly from third-party suppliers under month-to-month evergreen
supply contracts and on the spot market. The Princeton refinery ships its finished products throughout the U.S. via truck, barge
and railcar service.
Missouri Facility
The Missouri facility, located on a 22 acre site in Louisiana, Missouri, develops and produces polyolester synthetic lubricants
for use in refrigeration compressors, commercial aviation and polyolester base stocks. In December 2015, we completed a project
to double the production capacity of the facility from 35 million pounds to 75 million pounds per year. The facility has approximately
178,000 barrels of storage capacity in 64 tanks and related loading and unloading facilities and utilities. The facility receives its
fatty acids and alcohol feedstocks and additives by truck and railcar under supply agreements or spot agreements with various
suppliers.
The Missouri facility utilizes the latest batch esterification processes designed to ensure blending accuracy while maintaining
production flexibility to meet customer needs.
Royal Purple
The Royal Purple facility, located on a 28 acre site in Porter, Texas, develops, blends and packages high performance synthetic
lubricants and fluid additive products for use in industrial, commercial and automotive applications. The Royal Purple facility’s
processing capability includes ten in-house packaging and production lines. Outsourced packaging services for specific products
are also used. The facility has approximately 30,500 barrels of storage capacity in 91 tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities. The facility receives its base oil feedstocks and additives by truck under supply agreements or spot agreements with
various suppliers.
Bel-Ray
The Bel-Ray facility, located on a 32 acre site in Wall Township, New Jersey, blends and packages high performance synthetic
lubricants and greases for use primarily in aerospace, automotive, energy, food, marine, military, mining, motorcycle, powersports,
steel and textiles applications. The Bel-Ray facility’s processing capability includes 24 blending tanks and packaging production
lines. In addition, the Bel-Ray facility has approximately 13,000 barrels of storage capacity in 63 tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities. The Bel-Ray facility receives its base oil feedstocks and additives by truck under supply agreements
or spot agreements with various suppliers.
The Bel-Ray facility is designed with batch processing technology and is also designed to maximize blending flexibility to
meet customer needs. The packaging operations utilize both in-house packaging equipment and outsourced packaging services
for specific products.
Karns City and Dickinson Facilities and Other Processing Agreements
The Karns City facility, located on a 225 acre site in Karns City, Pennsylvania (“Karns City”), has aggregate base oil
throughput capacity of 5,500 bpd and processes white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums, gelled hydrocarbons, cable fillers and
natural petroleum sulfonates. The Karns City facility’s processing capability includes hydrotreating, fractionation, acid treating,
filtering, blending and packaging. In addition, the facility has approximately 817,000 barrels of storage capacity in 250 tanks and
related loading and unloading facilities and utilities.
The Dickinson facility, located on a 28 acre site in Dickinson, Texas (“Dickinson”), has aggregate base oil throughput capacity
of 1,300 bpd and processes white mineral oils, compressor lubricants, natural petroleum sulfonates and biodiesel. The Dickinson
facility’s processing capability includes acid treating, filtering and blending, approximately 183,000 barrels of storage capacity in
186 tanks and related loading and unloading facilities and utilities.
These facilities each receive their base oil feedstocks by railcar and truck under supply agreements or spot purchases with
various suppliers, the most significant of which is a long-term supply agreement with Phillips 66. Please read “— Our Crude Oil
and Feedstock Supply” below for further discussion of the long-term supply agreement with Phillips 66.
13
The following table sets forth the combined historical information about production at our Karns City, Dickinson and other
facilities:
Feedstock throughput capacity (1)
Total feedstock runs (2) (3)
Total production (3)
Combined Karns City, Dickinson and Other Facilities
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(in bpd)
2013
11,300
5,515
5,519
11,300
6,651
6,575
11,300
7,250
7,137
(1)
(2)
Includes Karns City, Dickinson and other facilities.
Includes feedstock runs at our Karns City and Dickinson facilities as well as throughput at certain third-party facilities
pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements and includes certain interplant feedstocks supplied from our Shreveport
refinery. For more information regarding our purchase commitments related to these supply and/or processing agreements,
please read Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations —
Contractual Obligations and Commitments.”
(3) Total production represents the barrels per day of specialty products yielded from processing feedstocks at our Karns City
and Dickinson facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements. The difference
between total production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of feedstocks and
the production of finished products.
Anchor Drilling Fluids and Anchor Oilfield Services
We are an independent provider and marketer of drilling fluids and completion fluids to the oil and gas exploration industry.
We design, manufacture and package drilling fluid products at our locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado,
Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio. We service oil and gas resource plays
in North America, including the Bakken, Barnett, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Granite Wash, Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara,
Permian, Piceance, Uinta and Utica shale formations.
We develop custom formulations and innovative solutions based on unique customer and well specifications. Through our
extensive line of drilling and completion fluids, we deliver solutions that reduce drilling and completion time, help to control
reservoir formation pressures and maximize oil and gas production, contributing to improved well economics for end-users.
Terminals
Our terminals are complementary to our refineries and play a key role in moving our products to end-user markets by
providing services including distribution and blending to achieve specified products and storage and inventory management. We
operate the following terminals:
Burnham Terminal: We own and operate a terminal located on an 11 acre site, in Burnham, Illinois. The Burnham terminal
receives specialty products from certain of our refineries primarily by railcar and distributes them by truck and railcar to our
customers in the Upper Midwest and East Coast regions of the U.S. and in Canada. The terminal includes a tank farm with 90
tanks having aggregate storage capacity of approximately 150,000 barrels, as well as blending equipment for producing engine
oil additives and tackifiers.
Rhinelander Terminal: We own and operate a terminal located on an 18 acre site, in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. The Rhinelander
terminal receives asphalt by truck from the Superior refinery and distributes product by truck. Asphalt from this terminal is sold
to customers in the Upper Midwest region of the U.S. The terminal includes a tank farm with four tanks with aggregate storage
capacity of approximately 166,000 barrels.
Crookston Terminal: We own and operate a terminal located on a 19 acre site, in Crookston, Minnesota. The Crookston
terminal receives asphalt by truck from the Superior refinery and distributes product by truck. Asphalt from this terminal is sold
to customers in the Upper Midwest region of the U.S. The terminal includes a tank farm with three tanks with aggregate storage
capacity of approximately 156,000 barrels.
Duluth Terminal: We own and operate a terminal located on a 49 acre site, in Proctor, Minnesota. The Duluth terminal is
supplied refined fuel products from the Superior refinery by the Magellan pipeline and receives ethanol and biodiesel products by
truck. Fuel products from this terminal are distributed by truck to customers in Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. The terminal
includes seven tanks with aggregate storage capacity of approximately 200,000 barrels.
14
In addition to the above terminals, we own and lease additional facilities, primarily related to distribution of finished products,
throughout the U.S.
Crude Oil Logistics Assets
We own and operate seven crude oil loading facilities and related assets in North Dakota and Montana, which provide us
with the ability to transport crude oil directly from the point of lease into our crude oil loading facilities and then onto the Enbridge
Pipeline where it can be routed to our Superior refinery and/or third party customers.
Other Logistics Assets
We use approximately 2,900 railcars leased from various lessors. This fleet of railcars enables us to receive and ship crude
oil and distribute various specialty products and fuel products throughout the U.S. and Canada to and from each of our facilities.
Our Crude Oil and Feedstock Supply
We purchase crude oil and other feedstocks from major oil companies as well as from various crude oil gatherers and
marketers in Texas, north Louisiana, North Dakota and Canada. Crude oil supplies at our refineries are as follows:
Refinery
Shreveport
Superior
San Antonio
Crude Oil Slate
West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”), local crude oils from East Texas,
North Louisiana, Arkansas and Light Louisiana Sweet (“LLS”)
Canadian Heavy, Canadian Synthetic, North Dakota Sweet (e.g.
Bakken) and Mixed Sweet Blend (“MSW”)
Local Texas sweet crude oil (e.g. Eagle Ford)
Cotton Valley
Local paraffinic crude oil
Mode of Transportation
Tank truck, railcar and Plains Pipeline
Enbridge Pipeline
Truck and pipeline connected to its
Elmendorf crude oil terminal
Plains Pipeline and tank truck
Montana
Princeton
Canadian Heavy and Canadian Sour (e.g. Bow River)
Front Range Pipeline
Local naphthenic crude oil
Tank truck, railcar and Plains Pipeline
In 2015, subsidiaries of Plains supplied us with approximately 37.4% of our total crude oil supply under term contracts and
month-to-month evergreen crude oil supply contracts. In 2015, BP supplied us with approximately 14.8% of our total crude oil
supply under the BP Purchase Agreement. Each of our refineries is dependent on one or more key suppliers and the loss of any 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. For more information about the BP Purchase Agreement, please read the information provided under Note 6
“Commitments and Contingencies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report.
We do not maintain long-term contracts with most of our crude oil suppliers. For example, our contracts with Plains are
currently month-to-month, terminable upon 90 days’ notice. In April 2012, we amended and restated the BP Purchase Agreement,
which had an initial term of one year ending April 1, 2013, and automatically renews for successive one-year terms unless terminated
by either party upon 90 days’ notice prior to the end of any renewal term. We also purchase foreign crude oil when its spot market
price is attractive relative to the price of crude oil from domestic sources.
We have various long-term feedstock supply agreements with Phillips 66, with remaining terms ranging from one to two
years, with some agreements operating under the option to continue on a month-to-month basis thereafter, for feedstocks that are
key to the operations of our Karns City and Dickinson facilities. In addition, certain products of our refineries can be used as
feedstocks by these facilities.
We believe that adequate supplies of crude oil and feedstocks will continue to be available to us.
Our cost to acquire crude oil and feedstocks and the prices 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, overall economic
conditions, 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 crude oil and
feedstock prices to our specialty products customers, although the increase in selling prices for specialty products typically lags
a rising cost of crude oil. From time to time, we use a hedging program to manage a portion of our commodity price risk. Please
read Part II, Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk — Commodity Price Risk — Derivative
Instruments” for a discussion of our hedging program.
15
Our Products, Markets and Customers
Products
Specialty Products and Fuel Products. We produce a full line of specialty products, including lubricating oils, solvents,
waxes, packaged and synthetic specialty products, other by-products, as well as a variety of fuel and fuel related products, asphalt
and heavy fuel oils. Our customers purchase specialty products primarily as raw material components for basic industrial, consumer
and automotive goods.
Oilfield Services. We are an independent provider and marketer of drilling fluids and completion fluids.
• Drilling fluids — Drilling fluids, often referred to as “drilling mud,” are an essential and critical product of the drilling
process for every oil and gas well. We provide three different types of drilling fluids including water-based mud, oil-
based mud and synthetic-based mud.
• Completion fluids — Completion fluids replace drilling fluids during the final operations leading up to oil and gas
production from a well. Completion fluids are critical products designed to control reservoir formation pressures and
minimize formation damage in the event of a failure in down hole equipment.
• Solids control — Solids control is employed in drilling operations to filter out cuttings and clean the drilling fluid before
it is pumped back into the well.
The following table depicts a representative sample of the diversity of end-use applications for the products we produce:
Representative Sample of End-Use Applications by Product
Lubricating Oils
14% (1)
Solvents
7% (1)
Waxes
3% (1)
• Paraffin waxes
• FDA compliant
products
• Candles
• Adhesives
• Crayons
• Floor care
• PVC
• Paint strippers
• Skin & hair care
• Timber treatment
• Waterproofing
• Pharmaceuticals
• Cosmetics
• Hydraulic oils
• Passenger car motor
oils
• Railroad engine oils
• Cutting oils
• Compressor oils
• Metalworking fluids
• Transformer oils
• Rubber process oils
• Industrial lubricants
• Gear oils
• Grease
• Automatic
transmission fluid
• Animal feed dedusting
• Baby oils
• Bakery pan oils
• Catalyst carriers
• Gelatin capsule
lubricants
• Sunscreen
• Waterless hand
cleaners
• Alkyd resin
diluents
• Automotive
products
• Calibration fluids
• Camping fuel
• Charcoal lighter
fluids
• Chemical
processing
• Drilling fluids
• Printing inks
• Water treatment
• Paint and
coatings
• Stains
Packaged and
Synthetic Specialty
Products
7% (1)
• Refrigeration
compressor oils
• Positive displacement
and roto-dynamic
compressor oils
• Commercial and
military jet engine oil
• Lubricating greases
• Gear oils
• Aviation hydraulic
oils
• High performance
small engine fuels
• Two cycle and four
stroke engine oils
• High performance
automotive engine
oils
• High performance
industrial lubricants
• High temperature
chain lubricants
• Food contact grade
lubricants
• Charcoal lighter fluids
and other solvents
• Engine treatment
additives
Oilfield
Services
7% (1)
Other
1% (1)
• Drilling fluids
• Completion
• Roofing
• Paving
fluids
• Solids control
Fuels & Fuel
Related Products
61% (1)
• Gasoline
• Diesel
• Jet fuel
• Marine diesel fuel
• Biodiesel
• Ethanol
• Ethanol free fuels
• Fluid catalytic
cracking feedstock
• Asphalt vacuum
residuals
• Mixed butanes
• Roofing
• Paving
• Heavy fuel oils
(1) Based on the percentage of total sales for the year ended December 31, 2015. Except for the listed fuel products and certain
products sold by our Royal Purple, Bel-Ray and Calumet Packaging facilities and United Petroleum assets, we do not produce
any of these end-use products.
Marketing
We have an experienced marketing department with average industry tenure of approximately 20 years. Our salespeople
regularly visit customers, and our marketing department works closely with both the laboratories at our production facilities and
our technical services department to help create specialized blends that will work optimally for our customers.
16
Markets
Specialty Products. The specialty products market represents a small portion of the overall petroleum refining industry in
the U.S. Of the nearly 140 refineries currently in operation in the U.S., only a small number of the refineries are considered specialty
products producers and only a few compete with us in terms of the number of products produced.
Our specialty products are utilized in applications across a broad range of industries, including:
•
•
industrial goods such as metalworking fluids, belts, hoses, sealing systems, batteries, hot melt adhesives, pressure sensitive
tapes, electrical transformers, refrigeration compressors and drilling fluids;
consumer goods such as candles, petroleum jelly, creams, tonics, lotions, coating on paper cups, chewing gum base,
automotive aftermarket car-care products (e.g., fuel injection cleaners, tire shines and polishes), lamp oils, charcoal lighter
fluids, camping fuel and various aerosol products; and
•
automotive goods such as motor oils, greases, transmission fluid and tires.
We have the capability to ship our specialty products worldwide. In the U.S., we ship our specialty products via railcars,
trucks and barges. We use our fleet of approximately 2,900 leased railcars to ship our specialty products and a majority of our
specialty products sales are shipped in trucks owned and operated by several different third-party carriers. For shipments outside
of North America, which accounted for less than 10% of our consolidated sales in 2015, we ship via railcars and trucks to several
ports where the product is loaded onto vessels for shipment to customers abroad.
Fuel Products. The fuel products market represents a large portion of the overall petroleum refining industry in the U.S. Of
the nearly 140 refineries currently in operation in the U.S., a large number of the refineries are fuel products producers; however,
only a few compete with us in our local markets.
Gulf Coast Market (PADD 3)
Fuel products produced at our Shreveport refinery can be sold locally or to the Midwest region of the U.S. through the
TEPPCO pipeline. Local sales are made from the TEPPCO terminal in Bossier City, Louisiana, located approximately 15 miles
from the Shreveport refinery, as well as from our own Shreveport refinery terminal.
Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from the Shreveport refinery is sold primarily into the Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas markets,
and any excess volumes are sold 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 region via the TEPPCO pipeline.
The Shreveport refinery has the capacity to produce about 9,000 bpd of commercial jet fuel that can be marketed to the U.S.
Department of Defense, sold as Jet-A locally or sold via the TEPPCO pipeline, or occasionally transferred to the Cotton Valley
refinery to be processed further as a feedstock to produce solvents. We have a sales contract with the U.S. Department of Defense
for approximately 2,500 bpd of jet fuel. This contract is effective until March 2016 and is bid annually.
Fuel products produced at our San Antonio refinery are sold locally in Texas. Additionally, the San Antonio refinery produces
commercial and specialty jet fuel that can be marketed to the U.S. Department of Defense or sold locally as Jet-A fuel. We have
a sales contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for approximately 550 bpd of jet fuel. This contract is effective until March
2017.
Additionally, we produce a number of fuel-related products including fluid catalytic cracking (“FCC”) feedstock, vacuum
residuals and mixed butanes. FCC feedstock is sold to other refiners as a feedstock for their FCC units to make fuel products.
Vacuum residuals are blended or processed further to make asphalt products. Volumes of vacuum residuals which we cannot
process are sold locally into the fuel oil market or sold via railcar to other refiners. Mixed butanes are primarily available in the
summer months and are primarily sold to local marketers. If the mixed butanes are not sold, they are blended into our gasoline
production.
Upper Midwest Market (PADD 2)
Fuel products produced at our Superior refinery can be sold locally, in the Upper Midwest region of the U.S. and in Canada.
The Superior wholesale business sells fuel products produced at the Superior refinery through several Magellan pipeline terminals
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah and through its own leased or owned product terminals
located in Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota. The Superior wholesale business also sells gasoline wholesale to Calumet
branded gas stations throughout the Upper Midwest, which are owned and operated by independent franchisees.
Northwest Market (PADD 4)
Fuel products produced at our Montana refinery can be sold locally and in Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming
and Canada. Seasonally, the Montana refinery transports fuel products to terminals in Washington.
17
We have a sales contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for approximately 150 bpd of jet fuel. This contract is effective
until September 2016.
Oilfield Services. We sell oilfield products and services in the Bakken, Barnett, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Granite Wash,
Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian, Piceance, Uinta and Utica shale formations.
Customers
Specialty Products. We have a diverse customer base for our specialty products, with approximately 3,600 active accounts.
Many of our customers are long-term customers who use our products in specialty applications, after an approval process ranging
from six months to two years. No single customer in our specialty products segment accounted for 10% or greater of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
Fuel Products. We have a diverse customer base for our fuel products, with approximately 600 active accounts. Our diverse
customer base includes wholesale distributors and retail chains. We are able to sell the majority of the fuel products we produce
at the Shreveport refinery to the local markets of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas. We also have the ability to ship additional fuel
products from the Shreveport refinery to the Midwest region through the TEPPCO pipeline should the need arise. Additionally,
we are able to sell the majority of the fuel products we produce at the Superior refinery to local markets in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
We also have the ability to ship additional fuel products from the Superior refinery to the Upper Midwest region through the
Magellan pipeline. The majority of our fuel products produced at our Montana refinery are sold to local markets in Montana and
Idaho as well as in Canada. Fuel products produced at our San Antonio refinery are sold to local markets in Texas. No single
customer in our fuel products segment represented 10% or greater of consolidated sales in each of the three years ended December 31,
2015, 2014 and 2013.
Oilfield Services. We have a diversified, established and unique customer base for our oilfield services, with approximately
400 active accounts. Our customers are companies operating in the domestic oil and gas exploration and production industry. No
single customer in our oilfield services segment accounted for 10% or greater of consolidated sales in each of the two years ended
December 31, 2015 and 2014.
Competition
Competition in our markets is from a combination of large, integrated petroleum companies, independent refiners, wax
production companies and oilfield services 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 exploration and production,
refining, transportation and marketing. These competitors may have greater flexibility in responding to or absorbing market changes
occurring in one or more of these business segments. We distinguish our competitors according to the products that they produce.
Set forth below is a description of our significant competitors according to product category.
Naphthenic Lubricating Oils. Our primary competitors in producing naphthenic lubricating oils include Ergon Refining,
Inc., Cross Oil Refining and Marketing, Inc., San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc. and Martin Midstream Partners L.P.
Paraffinic Lubricating Oils. Our primary competitors in producing paraffinic lubricating oils include ExxonMobil
Corporation, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, Phillips 66, Petro-Canada, HollyFrontier Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Sonneborn
Refined Products and Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Paraffin Waxes. Our primary competitors in producing paraffin waxes include ExxonMobil, HollyFrontier Corporation, The
International Group Inc. and Sonneborn Refined Products.
Solvents. Our primary competitors in producing solvents include CITGO Petroleum Corporation, ExxonMobil Chemical,
Phillips 66 and Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Packaged and Synthetic Specialty Products. Our primary competitors in retail and commercial packaged and synthetic
specialty products include ExxonMobil (Mobil 1), Ashland, Inc. (Valvoline) and BP Lubricants, USA (Castrol). Our primary
competitors in industrial packaged and synthetic specialty products include ExxonMobil Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell plc and
Chevron.
Fuel Products and By-Products. Our primary competitors in producing fuel products in the local markets in which we operate
include Delek US Holdings, Flint Hills Resources, Northern Tier Energy LP, ExxonMobil, Valero Energy Corporation, Phillips
66, Cenex, Alon USA and Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Oilfield Services. Our primary competitors in servicing oilfields in the local markets in which we operate include
Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Newpark Resources and other regional competition.
Our ability to compete effectively depends on our responsiveness to customer needs and our ability to maintain competitive
prices and product and service offerings. We believe that our flexibility and customer responsiveness differentiate us from many
18
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.
Governmental Regulation
From time to time, we are a party to certain claims and litigation incidental to our business, including claims made by various
taxation and regulatory authorities, such as the EPA, various state environmental regulatory bodies, the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”), various state and local departments of revenue and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”),
as the result of audits or reviews of our business. In addition, we have property, business interruption, general liability and various
other insurance policies that may result in certain losses or expenditures being reimbursed to us.
Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters
Environmental
We conduct crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining, blending and terminal operations in addition to providing oilfield
services and products, which activities are subject to stringent federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations governing
worker health and safety, the discharge of materials into the environment and environmental protection. These laws and regulations
impose obligations that are applicable to our operations, such as requiring the acquisition of permits to conduct regulated activities,
restricting the manner in which we may release materials into the environment, requiring remedial activities or capital expenditures
to mitigate pollution from former or current operations, requiring the application of specific health and safety criteria addressing
worker protection and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations. Failure to comply with these
laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties; the imposition
of investigatory, remedial or corrective action obligations or the corresponding incurrence of capital expenditures; the occurrence
of delays in the permitting, development or expansion of projects; and the issuance of injunctive relief limiting or prohibiting our
activities in a particular area. Moreover, certain of these laws impose joint and several, strict liability for costs required to remediate
and restore sites where petroleum hydrocarbons, wastes or other materials have been disposed of or released. In addition, new
laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased governmental enforcement or other
developments could significantly increase our operational or compliance expenditures, as discussed below in more detail.
Remediation of subsurface contamination is in process at certain of our refinery sites and is being overseen by the appropriate
state agencies. Based on current investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the soil and 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.
San Antonio Refinery
In connection with the San Antonio Acquisition, we agreed to indemnify NuStar for an unlimited term and without
consideration of a monetary deductible or cap from any environmental liabilities associated with the San Antonio refinery, except
for any governmental penalties or fines that may result from NuStar’s actions or inactions during NuStar’s 20-month period of
ownership of the San Antonio refinery. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) and Age Refining, Inc. (“Age Refining”),
a third party that has since entered bankruptcy, are subject to a 1995 Agreed Order from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, now known as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, pursuant to which Anadarko and Age Refining are
obligated to assess and remediate certain contamination at the San Antonio refinery that predates our acquisition of the facility.
We do not expect this pre-existing contamination at the San Antonio refinery to have a material adverse effect on our financial
position or results of operations.
Montana Refinery
In connection with the acquisition of the Montana refinery from Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (“Connacher”), we became
a party to an existing 2002 Refinery Initiative Consent Decree (the “Montana Consent Decree”) with the EPA and the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (the “MDEQ”). The material obligations imposed by the Montana Consent Decree have
been completed. On September 27, 2012, Montana Refining Company, Inc. received a final Corrective Action Order on Consent,
replacing the refinery’s previously held hazardous waste permit. This Corrective Action Order on Consent governs the investigation
and remediation of contamination at the Montana refinery. We believe the majority of damages related to such contamination at
the Montana refinery are covered by a contractual indemnity provided by HollyFrontier Corporation (“Holly”), the owner and
operator of the Montana refinery prior to its acquisition by Connacher, under an asset purchase agreement between Holly and
Connacher, pursuant to which Connacher acquired the Montana refinery. Under this asset purchase agreement, Holly agreed to
indemnify Connacher and Montana Refining Company, Inc., subject to timely notification, certain conditions and certain monetary
baskets and caps, for environmental conditions arising under Holly’s ownership and operation of the Montana refinery and existing
as of the date of sale to Connacher. During 2014, Holly provided us a notice challenging our position that Holly is obligated to
indemnify our remediation expenses for environmental conditions to the extent arising under Holly’s ownership and operation of
the refinery and existing as of the date of sale to Connacher, which expenses totaled approximately $17.6 million as of December 31,
19
2015, of which $14.4 million was capitalized into the cost of our recently completed expansion project and $3.2 million was
expensed. We continue to believe that Holly is responsible to indemnify us for these remediation expenses disputed by Holly, and
on September 22, 2015, we initiated a lawsuit against Holly and the sellers of the Montana refinery that were party to the asset
purchase agreement. On November 24, 2015, Holly and such sellers filed a motion to dismiss the case pending arbitration. We are
opposing the motion. In the event we are unsuccessful, we will be responsible for those remediation expenses. We expect that we
may incur some costs to remediate other environmental conditions at the Montana refinery; however, we believe at this time that
these other costs we may incur will not be material to our financial position or results of operations.
Superior Refinery
In connection with the acquisition of the Superior refinery, we became a party to an existing Refinery Initiative Consent
Decree (“Superior Consent Decree”) with the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) that applies,
in part, to our Superior refinery. Under the Superior Consent Decree, we must complete certain reductions in air emissions at the
Superior refinery as well as report upon certain emissions from the refinery to the EPA and the WDNR. We estimate costs of up
to $4.0 million as of December 31, 2015, to make known equipment upgrades and conduct other discrete tasks in compliance with
the Superior Consent Decree. Failure to perform these required tasks under the Superior Consent Decree could result in the
imposition of stipulated penalties, which could be material. We are currently assessing certain past actions at the refinery for
compliance with the terms of the Superior Consent Decree, which actions may be subject to stipulated penalties under the Superior
Consent Decree but, in any event, we do not currently believe that the imposition of such penalties for those actions, should they
be imposed, would be material. In addition, we are pursuing certain additional environmental and safety-related projects at the
Superior refinery. Completion of these additional projects will result in us incurring costs, which could be substantial. We incurred
approximately $0.7 million of costs in 2014 related to installing process equipment at the Superior refinery pursuant to the EPA
fuel content regulations.
On June 29, 2012, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation/Notice of Violation to the Superior refinery, which included a
proposed penalty amount of $0.1 million. This finding is in response to information that we provided to the EPA in response to an
information request. The EPA alleges that the efficiency of the flares at the Superior refinery is lower than regulatory requirements.
We are contesting the allegations and are in settlement discussions with the EPA to resolve this issue. We have not yet received
formal action from the EPA. We do not believe that the resolution of these allegations will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position or results of operations.
We are contractually indemnified by Murphy Oil Corporation (“Murphy Oil”) under an asset purchase agreement between
Murphy Oil and us for specified environmental liabilities arising from the operation of the Superior refinery including: (i) certain
obligations arising out of the Superior Consent Decree (including payment of a civil penalty required under the Superior Consent
Decree), (ii) certain liabilities arising in connection with Murphy Oil’s transport of certain wastes and other materials to specified
offsite real properties for disposal or recycling prior to the Superior Acquisition and (iii) certain liabilities for certain third party
actions, suits or proceedings alleging exposure, prior to the Superior Acquisition, of an individual to wastes or other materials at
the specified on-site real property, which wastes or other materials were spilled, released, emitted or otherwise discharged by
Murphy Oil. We believe contractual indemnity by Murphy Oil for such specified environmental liabilities is unlimited in duration
and not subject to any monetary deductibles or maximums. The amount of any damages payable by Murphy Oil pursuant to the
contractual indemnities under the asset purchase agreement are net of any amount recoverable under an environmental insurance
policy that we obtained in connection with the Superior Acquisition, which named Murphy Oil and us as insureds and covers
environmental conditions existing at the Superior refinery prior to the Superior Acquisition.
Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton Refineries
On December 23, 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(“LDEQ”) under LDEQ’s “Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative,” covering the Shreveport, Princeton and Cotton
Valley refineries. This settlement agreement became effective on January 31, 2012. The settlement agreement, termed the “Global
Settlement,” resolved alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and federal Clean Water Act regulations that arose prior to
December 23, 2010. Among other things, we agreed to complete beneficial environmental programs and implement emissions
reduction projects at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries on an agreed-upon schedule. During 2015 and 2014,
we incurred approximately $6.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, of such expenditures and estimate additional expenditures
of approximately $3.0 million to $5.0 million of capital expenditures and expenditures related to additional personnel and
environmental studies through 2016 as a result of the implementation of these requirements. These capital investment requirements
will be incorporated into our annual capital expenditures budget, and we do not expect any additional capital expenditures as a
result of the required audits or required operational changes included in the Global Settlement to have a material adverse effect
on our financial position or results of operations.
We are contractually indemnified by Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), as successor to Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, and
Atlas Processing Company, under an asset purchase agreement between Shell and us, for specified environmental liabilities arising
from the operations of the Shreveport refinery prior to our acquisition of the facility. We believe the contractual indemnity is
20
unlimited in amount and duration, but requires us to contribute $1.0 million of the first $5.0 million of indemnified costs for certain
of the specified environmental liabilities.
Bel-Ray Facility
Bel-Ray executed an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
effective January 4, 1994, which required investigation and remediation of contamination at or emanating from the Bel-Ray facility.
In 2000, Bel-Ray entered into a fixed price remediation contract with Weston Solutions (“Weston”), a large remediation contractor,
whereby Weston agreed to be fully liable for the remediation of the soil and groundwater issues at the facility, including an offsite
groundwater plume pursuant to the ACO (“Weston Agreement”). The Weston Agreement set up a trust fund to reimburse Weston,
administered by Bel-Ray’s environmental counsel. As of December 31, 2015, the trust fund contained approximately $0.8 million.
In addition, Weston has remediation cost containment insurance, should Weston be unable to complete the work required under
the Weston Agreement. In connection with the Bel-Ray Acquisition, we became a party to the Weston Agreement.
Weston has been addressing the environmental issues at the Bel-Ray facility over time, and the next phase will address the
groundwater issues, which extend offsite.
Air Emissions
Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), and comparable state and local laws. The
CAA 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 CAA, facilities
that emit regulated air pollutants are subject to stringent regulations, including requirements to install various levels of control
technology on sources of pollutants. In addition, in recent years, the petroleum refining sector has become subject to stringent
federal regulations that impose 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. Our
refining and terminal operations that emit regulated air pollutants are also subject to air emissions permitting requirements that
incorporate stringent control technology requirements for which we may incur significant capital expenditures. Any renewal of
those air emissions permits or a need to modify existing or obtain new air emissions permits has the potential to delay the development
of our projects. We can provide no assurance that future compliance with existing or any new laws, regulations or permit requirements
will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. For example, on October 1,
2015, the EPA issued a final rule under the CAA that became effective on December 28, 2015, lowering the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion under both the primary and secondary standards to
provide requisite protection of public health and welfare, respectively. Also, in December 2015, the EPA published a final rule that
amends three refinery standards already in effect, imposing additional or, in some cases, new emission control requirements on
subject refineries. The final rule requires, among other things, the monitoring of air concentrations of benzene around the refinery
fence line perimeter and submittal of the fence line monitoring data to the EPA on a quarterly basis; upgraded emissions controls
for storage tanks, including controls for smaller capacity storage vessels and storage vessels storing materials with lower vapor
pressures than previously regulated; enhanced performance requirements for flares including the use of a minimum of three pollution
prevention measures, continuous monitoring of flares and pressure release devices and analysis and remedy of flare release events;
and compliance with emissions standards for delayed coking units. These final rules and any other future air emissions rulemakings
could impact us by requiring installation of new emission controls on some of our equipment, resulting in longer permitting
timelines, and significantly increasing our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact our business.
The CAA 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 product’s final use. For example, in February 2000, the EPA
published regulations limiting the sulfur content allowed in gasoline. These regulations, referred to as “Tier 2 Standards,” required
the phase-in of gasoline sulfur standards beginning in 2004, with special provisions for small refiners and for refiners serving those
western U.S. states exhibiting lesser air quality problems. Similarly, the EPA published 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”).
Our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries have implemented the sulfur standard with respect to produced
gasoline and produced diesel meeting the ultra-low sulfur standard. In April 2014, the EPA published more stringent sulfur standards,
referred to as “Tier 3 Standards,” including requiring that motor gasoline will not contain more than 10 ppm of sulfur on an annual
average basis by January 1, 2017. Our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries will implement the 10 ppm sulfur
standard with respect to produced gasoline by January 1, 2017, and we do not believe any remaining equipment upgrades at one
or more of these refineries necessary to achieve the 10 ppm sulfur standard with respect to such produced gasoline will result in
any material capital expenditures by us. In addition, we are required to meet the MSAT II Standards adopted by the EPA to reduce
the benzene content of motor gasoline produced at our facilities. We have completed capital projects at our Shreveport, Superior,
Montana and San Antonio refineries to comply with these fuel quality requirements.
The EPA has issued Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) mandates, requiring refiners such as us to blend renewable fuels into
the petroleum fuels they produce and sell in the U.S. We, and other refiners subject to RFS, may meet the RFS requirements by
21
blending the necessary volumes of renewable transportation fuels produced by us or purchased from third parties. To the extent
that refiners will not or cannot blend renewable fuels into the products they produce in the quantities required to satisfy their
obligations under the RFS program, those refiners must purchase renewable credits, referred to as RINs, to maintain compliance.
To the extent that we exceed the minimum volumetric requirements for blending of renewable transportation fuels, we generate
our own RINs for which we have the option of retaining the RINs for current or future RFS compliance or selling those RINs on
the open market.
Under the RFS program, the volume of renewable fuels that obligated parties are required to blend into their finished petroleum
fuels increases annually over time until 2022. Our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries are normally subject
to compliance with the RFS mandates. However, the RFS program further provides for a small refinery to be granted a temporary
exemption from its annual mandated volume of renewable fuels if such refinery can demonstrate that compliance with those
mandated volumes would cause the refinery to suffer disproportionate economic hardship. In October 2014, the EPA granted both
the Shreveport and San Antonio refineries a “small refinery exemption” under the RFS for the 2013 calendar year. Under these
2013 exemptions granted by the EPA, both the Shreveport and San Antonio refineries are not subject to the requirements of RFS
as an “obligated party” for fuels produced at these refineries between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013. As a result of the
exemptions, our requirements to purchase RINs for 2013 compliance were reduced by approximately 39 million RINs. As a result
of the exemptions, we sold approximately 31 million RINs for a gain of approximately $18.2 million during the fourth quarter of
2014.
On November 30, 2015, the EPA issued final multi-year volume mandates for 2014 to 2016. While these volume mandates
are generally lower than the statutory mandates, they represent a slight increase over the volumes initially proposed by the EPA
for this three-year period and such volume mandates could be increased in the future. We have reapplied for the small refinery
exemption at selected refineries for the full year 2014 and are in the process of an assessment to determine which of our fuels
refineries potentially could be eligible for economic hardship exemptions for the 2015 calendar year. While we received a small
refinery exemption for the Shreveport and San Antonio refineries for 2013, there is no assurance that such an exemption will be
obtained for either of these refineries for the 2014 year or in future years, which would result in the need for more RINs for the
applicable calendar year. Our gross 2015 annual RINs obligation, which includes RINs that were required to be secured through
either our own blending or through the purchase of RINs in the open market, was 99 million RINs for the 2015 calendar year.
On October 13, 2010, the EPA raised the maximum amount of ethanol content allowed under federal law from 10% to 15%
for cars and light trucks manufactured since 2007, and on January 21, 2011, EPA extended the maximum allowable ethanol content
of 15% to apply to cars and light trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006. The maximum amount allowed under federal law
currently remains at 10% ethanol for all other vehicles. EPA required that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers take certain steps
before introducing gasoline containing 15% ethanol (“E15”) into the market, including developing and obtaining EPA approval
of a plan to minimize the potential for E15 to be used in vehicles and engines not covered by the partial waiver. EPA has taken
several recent actions to authorize the introduction of E15 into the market, including approving, on June 15, 2012, the first plans
to minimize the potential for E15 to be used in vehicles and engines not covered by the partial waiver, followed by approving, on
February 7, 2013, a new blender pump configuration for general use by retail stations that wish to dispense E15 and gasoline
containing 10% ethanol (“E10”) from a common hose and nozzle. Existing laws and regulations could change, and the minimum
volumes of renewable fuels that must be blended with refined petroleum fuels may increase. Because we do not produce renewable
transportation fuels at all of our refineries, increasing the volume of renewable fuels that must be blended into our products displaces
an increasing volume of our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries’ fuel products pool, potentially resulting
in lower earnings and materially adversely affecting our ability to make payments on our debt obligations.
Climate Change
In response to findings by the EPA that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases (“GHG”) present
an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are contributing to the warming of the
earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air
Act that, among other things, establish Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction and Title V operating permit
program requiring reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for
their GHG emissions will also be required to meet “best available control technology” standards, which will be established by the
states or, in some instances, by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, on December 23, 2010, the EPA entered a settlement
agreement with environmental groups requiring the agency to propose by December 10, 2011, GHG New Source Performance
Standards (“NSPS”) for refineries and to finalize these rules by November 15, 2012. To date, the EPA has not completed those
rulemakings, and we do not know when they will be completed. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring
and reporting of GHG emissions from specified large GHG emission sources in the U.S., including petroleum refineries, on an
annual basis. We monitor for and report upon GHG emissions at our facilities, where required. These EPA policies and rulemakings
or any new administrative legal requirements could adversely affect our operations and restrict or delay our ability to obtain air
permits for new or modified facilities.
22
In addition, from time to time Congress has considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHG, and a number of the states
have already taken legal measures to reduce emissions of GHG, primarily through the planned development of GHG emission
inventories and/or regional GHG cap and trade programs. On an international level, the U.S. is one of almost 200 nations that
agreed on December 12, 2015, to an international climate change agreement in Paris, France, that calls for countries to set their
own GHG emissions targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its GHG emissions targets. It
is not possible at this time to predict how or when the U.S. might impose legal requirements as a result of this international
agreement. The adoption of any legislation or regulations that requires reporting of GHG or otherwise limits emissions of GHG
from our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to reduce emissions of GHG associated with our operations or
could adversely affect demand for the refined petroleum products that we produce. For example, on August 18, 2015, the EPA
published a proposed rule that will establish emission standards for methane and volatile organic compounds released from new
and modified oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmissions facilities, as part of President Obama’s
Administration’s efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels by
2025. The EPA is expected to finalize those rules in 2016. Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that
increasing concentrations of GHG in the earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects,
such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods and other climatic events; if any such effects were to occur, they could
have an adverse effect on our operations.
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, as amended (“RCRA”), and comparable
state laws, which impose requirements related to the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and non-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 non-hazardous
solid wastes, which are regulated under RCRA and state laws. Historically, our environmental compliance costs under the existing
requirements of RCRA and similar state and local laws have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations, 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 were 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.
In addition, new laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased governmental
enforcement or other developments could require us to make additional unforeseen expenditures. Many of these laws and regulations
are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to increase over time.
For example, in 2012, the EPA published final amendments to the NSPS for petroleum refineries, including standards for emissions
of nitrogen oxides from process heaters and work practice standards and monitoring requirements for flares.
Remediation of subsurface contamination is in process at certain of our refinery sites and is being overseen by the appropriate
state agencies. Based on current investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the soil and 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.
23
Water Discharges
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, also known as the federal 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 oil 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. The EPA retains jurisdiction over federal waters of the U.S. pursuant to
the Clean Water Act and has published a final rule on June 29, 2015, that attempted to clarify this jurisdiction over such waters of
the U.S.; however, this rule is alleged to have impermissibly broadened such jurisdiction and thus the rule is subject to various
legal impediments, including formalized opposition, lawsuits and/or court stays. Historically, our environmental compliance costs
under the existing requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and similar state laws have not had a material adverse effect on
our results of operations.
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. Our past environmental compliance with OPA and similar state laws have
not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Occupational 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 regulations strictly govern the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, OSHA’s
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, contractors, state and local government authorities and customers.
We maintain safety and training programs as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
We conduct periodic audits of Process Safety Management (“PSM”) systems at each of our locations subject to the PSM standard.
Our compliance with applicable health and safety laws and regulations has required, and continues to require, substantial
expenditures. Changes in occupational safety and health laws and regulations or a finding of non-compliance with current laws
and regulations could result in additional capital expenditures or operating expenses, as well as civil penalties and, in the event of
a serious injury or fatality, criminal charges.
We have completed studies to assess the adequacy of our PSM practices at our Shreveport refinery with respect to certain
consensus codes and standards. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we incurred approximately $0.6 million
and $1.1 million, respectively, of related capital expenditures and expect to incur up to $1.4 million of capital expenditures during
2016 to address OSHA compliance issues identified in these studies. We expect these capital expenditures will enhance our
equipment such that the equipment maintains compliance with applicable consensus codes and standards.
In the first quarter of 2011, OSHA conducted an inspection of the Cotton Valley refinery’s PSM program. On March 14,
2011, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (the “Cotton Valley Citation”) to us as a result of our Cotton Valley
inspection, which included a proposed penalty amount of $0.2 million. We have contested the Cotton Valley Citation and have
reached a tentative settlement with OSHA on the matter, which we do not believe will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position or results of operations.
Other Environmental and Maintenance Items
We perform preventive and normal maintenance on most, if not all, of our refining and terminal assets and make repairs and
replacements when necessary or appropriate. We also conduct inspections of these assets as required by law or regulation.
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 our facilities, with insurers in amounts and with coverage
and deductibles that we, with the advice of our insurance advisors and brokers, believe are reasonable and prudent. We cannot,
however, ensure that this insurance will be adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to potential future claims for
personal and property damage or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at economical prices. We are not fully
insured against certain risks because such risks are not fully insurable, coverage is unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment,
do not justify such expenditures.
24
Seasonality
The operating results for the fuel products segment, including the selling prices of asphalt products we produce, generally
follow seasonal demand trends. 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 the road construction and roofing industries we supply. Demand for gasoline
and diesel 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 demand for natural gas as a heating fuel
increases during the winter. 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 due to seasonality related to these and other products that we produce and sell.
The operating results for the oilfield services segment follow seasonal changes in weather and significant weather events
can temporarily affect the performance and delivery of our oilfield services and products. The severity and duration of the winter
can have a significant impact on drilling activity. Additionally, customer spending patterns for other oilfield services and products
can result in lower activity in the fourth calendar quarter.
Properties
We own and lease the principal properties which are listed below. The principal properties which we own, among others not
listed below, are pledged as collateral under our Collateral Trust Agreement as discussed in Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Debt and Credit Facilities.”
We believe that all properties are suitable for their intended purpose, are being efficiently utilized and provide adequate capacity
to meet demand for the next several years.
Property
Shreveport refinery
Superior refinery
Montana refinery
San Antonio refinery
Princeton refinery
Cotton Valley refinery
Burnham terminal
Karns City facility
Dickinson facility
Rhinelander terminal
Crookston terminal
Missouri facility
Calumet Packaging facility
Royal Purple facility
Bel-Ray facility
Elmendorf terminal
Duluth terminal
Business Segment(s)
Fuels and Specialty
Fuels
Fuels
Fuels and Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Fuels
Fuels
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Specialty
Fuels
Fuels
Acres
240
Owned / Leased
Owned
Location
Shreveport, Louisiana
675
86
32
208
77
11
225
28
18
19
22
10
28
32
8
49
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Leased
Owned
Owned
Owned
Owned
Superior, Wisconsin
Great Falls, Montana
San Antonio, Texas
Princeton, Louisiana
Cotton Valley, Louisiana
Burnham, Illinois
Karns City, Pennsylvania
Dickinson, Texas
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Crookston, Minnesota
Louisiana, Missouri
Shreveport, Louisiana
Porter, Texas
Wall Township, New Jersey
Elmendorf, Texas
Proctor, Minnesota
In addition to the items listed above, we lease or own a number of storage tanks, railcars, warehouses, equipment, land, crude
oil loading facilities and precious metals.
Intellectual Property
Our patents relating to our refining operations are not material to us as a whole. Our products consist of composition patents
which are integral to the formulas of our products. We own, have registered or applied for registration of a variety of tradenames,
service marks and trademarks for us in our business. The trademarks, tradenames and design marks under which we conduct our
branded business (including Royal Purple, Bel-Ray, TruFuel and Quantum) and other trademarks employed in the marketing of
our products are integral to our marketing operations. We also license intellectual property rights from third parties. We are not
aware of any facts as of the date of this filing which would negatively impact our continuing use of our tradenames, service marks
or trademarks.
Office Facilities
In addition to our principal properties discussed above, as of December 31, 2015, we were a party to a number of cancelable
and noncancelable leases for certain properties, including our corporate headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana, and administrative
offices in Houston, Texas. The corporate headquarters lease is for 58,501 square feet of office space. The lease term expires in
25
August 2024. The Houston facility lease is for 24,025 square feet of office space. The lease term expires in August 2022. See Note
6 “Commitments and Contingencies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data — Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements” of this Annual Report for additional information regarding our leases.
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.
Employees
As of February 29, 2016, our general partner employs approximately 2,100 people who provide direct support to our
operations. Of these employees, approximately 600 are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Employees at the following locations are covered by the following separate collective bargaining agreements:
Facility/ Refinery
Superior
Cotton Valley
Princeton
Dickinson
Shreveport
Missouri
Karns City
Montana
Union
International Union of Operating Engineers
International Union of Operating Engineers
International Union of Operating Engineers
International Union of Operating Engineers
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-
Industrial and Service Workers International Union
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-
Industrial and Service Workers International Union
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied-
Industrial and Service Workers International Union
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied-
Industrial and Service Workers International Union
Expiration Date
June 30, 2017
March 31, 2016
October 31, 2017
March 31, 2016
April 30, 2016
April 30, 2016
January 31, 2019
January 31, 2019
None of the employees at the San Antonio refinery, Calumet Packaging facility, Royal Purple facility, Bel-Ray facility,
Anchor or SOS locations or at the Burnham, Rhinelander, Crookston, Duluth or Elmendorf terminals 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 Parkway East Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46214
and our telephone number is (317) 328-5660. Our website is located at http://www.calumetspecialty.com.
Our Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings are available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable
after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. We make available, free of charge on our
website, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments
to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange Act”). These documents are located on our website at http://www.calumetspecialty.com by selecting the “Investor
Relations” link and then selecting the “SEC Filings” link. We also make available, free of charge on our website, our Charters for
the Audit, Compensation and Conflicts Committees, Related Party Transactions Policy and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.
These documents are located on our website at http://www.calumetspecialty.com by selecting the “Investor Relations” link and
then selecting the “Corporate Governance” link.
The above information is available to anyone who requests it and is free of charge either in print from our website or upon
request by contacting Investor Relations using the contact information listed above. Information on our website is not incorporated
into this Annual Report or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.
All reports and documents filed with the SEC are also available via the SEC website, http://www.sec.gov, or may be read
and copied at the SEC Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C., 20549. Information on the operation of the
SEC Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.
26
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Risks Relating to our Business
We may not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to pay our distribution at the current distribution level, or at
all, following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our general partner ,
and as a result , future distributions to our unitholders may be reduced, suspended or eliminated.
We may not have sufficient available cash from operations each quarter to enable us to pay our distribution to unitholders.
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 products, specialty products, or refined products, and oilfield services 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;
overall demand for oilfield products and services;
the level of foreign and domestic production of crude oil and refined products;
our ability to produce fuel products, specialty products and products used in oilfield services that meet our customers’
unique and precise specifications;
the marketing of alternative and competing products;
the extent of government regulation;
results of our hedging activities; and
overall economic and local market conditions.
In addition, the actual amount of cash we will have available for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which
are beyond our control, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the level of capital expenditures we make, including those for acquisitions, if any;
our debt service requirements;
fluctuations in our working capital needs;
our ability to borrow funds and access capital markets;
restrictions on distributions and on our ability to make working capital borrowings for distributions contained in our debt
instruments; and
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner for the proper conduct of our business.
If we generate insufficient cash from our operations for a sustained period of time and/or forecasts demonstrate expectations
of continued future insufficiencies, our board of directors may determine to reduce, suspend or eliminate our distribution to
unitholders. Any such reduction, suspension or elimination in distributions may cause the trading price of our units to decline.
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 and for payments of our debt obligations.
Our financial results are primarily affected by the relationship, or margin, between our specialty products prices and fuel
products prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. The cost to acquire our feedstocks and the price at which we can
ultimately sell our refined products depend upon numerous factors beyond our control. 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 Gulf Coast 2/1/1 crack
spread (“Gulf Coast crack spread”), which represents the approximate gross margin resulting from refining crude oil, assuming
that two barrels of a benchmark crude oil are converted, or cracked, into one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of heating oil. The
Gulf Coast crack spread ranged from a high of $28.74 per barrel to a low of $8.30 per barrel during 2015 and averaged $17.96 per
barrel during 2015 compared to an average of $17.13 in 2014 and $21.57 in 2013.
Our actual refining margins vary from the Gulf Coast 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 crack spread as an indicator of the volatility and general levels of refining margins.
27
The prices at which we sell specialty products are strongly influenced by the commodity price of crude oil. If crude oil prices
increase, our specialty products segment margins will fall unless we are able to pass through these price increases to our customers.
Increases in selling prices for specialty products typically lag behind the rising cost of crude oil and may be difficult to implement
quickly enough when crude oil costs increase dramatically over a short period of time. For example, in the first six months of
2008, excluding the effects of hedges, we experienced a 31.3% increase in the cost of crude oil per barrel as compared to an 18.3%
increase in the average sales price per barrel of our specialty products. It is possible we may not be able to pass through all or any
portion of increased crude oil costs to our customers. In addition, we are not able to completely eliminate our commodity risk
through our hedging activities.
Because refining margins are volatile, unitholders should not assume that our current margins will be sustained. If our refining
margins fall, it will adversely affect the amount of cash we will have available for distribution to our unitholders.
Our hedging activities may not be effective in reducing the volatility of our cash flows and may reduce our earnings,
profitability and cash flows.
We are exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude oil, fuel products, natural gas and interest rates. From time to time, we
utilize derivative financial instruments related to the future price of crude oil, natural gas, fuel products and their relationship with
each other with the intent of reducing volatility in our cash flows due to fluctuations in commodity prices and spreads. Historically,
we have utilized derivative instruments related to interest rates for future periods with the intent of reducing volatility in our cash
flows due to fluctuations in interest rates. We are not able to enter into derivative financial instruments to reduce the volatility of
the prices of the specialty products we sell as there is no established derivative market for such products.
The extent of our commodity price exposure is related largely to the effectiveness and scope of our hedging activities. The
derivative instruments we utilize are based on posted market prices, which may differ significantly from the actual crude oil prices,
natural gas prices or fuel products prices that we incur or realize in our operations. For example, excluding our crude oil basis
swaps, all of the crude oil derivatives in our hedge portfolio are based on the market price of New York Mercantile Exchange
(“NYMEX”) WTI and the fuel products derivatives are all based on U.S. Gulf Coast market prices. In recent periods, the spread
between NYMEX WTI and other crude oil indices (specifically Light Louisiana Sweet, Western Canadian Select and Brent, on
which a portion of our crude oil purchases are priced) has changed period to period, which has reduced the effectiveness of certain
crude oil hedges. Accordingly, our commodity price risk management policy may not protect us from significant and sustained
increases in crude oil or natural gas prices or decreases in fuel products prices. Conversely, our policy may limit our ability to
realize cash flows from crude oil and natural gas price decreases.
We have a policy to enter into derivative transactions related to only a portion of the volume of our expected purchase and
sales requirements and, as a result, we will continue to have direct commodity price exposure to the unhedged portion of our
expected purchase and sales requirements. Thus, we could be exposed to significant crude oil cost increases on a portion of our
purchases. Please read Part II, Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
Our actual future purchase and sales requirements may be significantly higher or lower than we estimate at the time we enter
into derivative transactions for such period. If the actual amount is higher than we estimate, we will have greater commodity price
exposure than we intended. If the actual amount is lower than the amount that is subject to our derivative financial instruments,
we might be forced to satisfy all or a portion of our derivative transactions without the benefit of the cash flow from our sale or
purchase of the underlying physical commodity, which may result in a substantial diminution of our liquidity. As a result, our
hedging activities may not be as effective as we intend in reducing the volatility of our cash flows. In addition, our hedging activities
are subject to the risks that a counterparty may not perform its obligations 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 financing arrangements contain operating and financial provisions that restrict our business and financing activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our financing arrangements, including our revolving credit facility,
indentures governing each series of our outstanding senior notes and master derivative contracts, do currently restrict, 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, including restrictions on our ability to, among other things:
•
•
•
•
sell assets, including equity interests in our subsidiaries;
pay distributions or redeem or repurchase our units or repurchase our subordinated debt;
incur or guarantee additional indebtedness or issue preferred units;
create or incur certain liens;
• make certain acquisitions and investments;
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
redeem or repay other debt or make other restricted payments;
enter into transactions with affiliates;
enter into agreements that restrict distributions or other payments from our restricted subsidiaries to us;
create unrestricted subsidiaries;
enter into sale and leaseback transactions;
enter into a merger, consolidation or transfer or sale of assets, including equity interests in our subsidiaries; and
engage in certain business activities.
Our revolving credit facility also contains a springing financial covenant which provides that, if availability under the
revolving credit facility falls below the greater of (a) 12.5% of the Borrowing Base (as defined in the revolving credit agreement)
then in effect and (b) $45.0 million, then we will be required to maintain as of the end of each fiscal quarter a Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio (as defined in the revolving credit agreement) of at least 1.0 to 1.0.
Our existing indebtedness imposes, and any future indebtedness may impose, a number of covenants on us regarding collateral
maintenance and insurance maintenance. As a result of these covenants and restrictions, we will be limited in the manner in which
we conduct our business, and we may be unable to engage in favorable business activities or finance future operations or capital
needs.
Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in our financing arrangements may be affected by events
beyond our control. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants and restrictions
may be impaired. A failure to comply with the covenants, ratios or tests in our financing arrangements or any future indebtedness
could result in an event of default under these financing arrangements, which, if not cured or waived, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Among other things, in the event of any default on our
indebtedness, our debt holders and lenders:
• will not be required to lend any additional amounts to us;
•
•
could elect to declare all borrowings outstanding, together with accrued and unpaid interest and fees, to be due and payable;
could elect to require that all obligations accrue interest at the default rate, if such rate has not already been imposed;
• may have the ability to require us to apply all of our available cash to repay these borrowings;
• may prevent us from making debt service payments under our other agreements, any of which could result in an event
of default under our other financing arrangements; or
•
in the case of our revolving credit facility, foreclose on the collateral pledged pursuant to the terms of the revolving credit
facility.
If our existing indebtedness were to be accelerated, there can be no assurance that we would have, or be able to obtain,
sufficient funds to repay such indebtedness in full. Even if new financing were available, it may be on terms that are less attractive
to us than our then existing indebtedness or it may not be on terms that are acceptable to us. In addition, our obligations under our
revolving credit facility are secured by a first priority lien on our cash, accounts receivable, inventory and certain other personal
property and our obligations under our master derivative contracts are secured by a first priority lien on our real property, plant
and equipment, fixtures, intellectual property, certain financial assets, certain investment property, commercial tort claims, chattel
paper, documents, instruments and proceeds of the forgoing (including proceeds of hedge agreements), and if we are unable to
repay our indebtedness under the revolving credit facility or master derivative contracts, the lenders under our revolving credit
facility and the counterparties to our master derivative contracts could seek to foreclose on these assets. Please read Part II, Item 7
“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources —
Debt and Credit Facilities,” “— Short Term Liquidity,” “— Long-Term Financing,” and “— Master Derivative Contracts” for
additional information regarding our long-term debt.
Our debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing and in pursuing other business opportunities.
We had approximately $1.8 billion of outstanding indebtedness as of December 31, 2015, and availability for borrowings
of $233.5 million under our senior secured revolving credit facility. We continue to have the ability to incur additional debt,
including the ability to borrow up to an aggregate principal amount of $1.0 billion at any time outstanding, subject to borrowing
base limitations, under our revolving credit facility. 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;
29
•
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 payments of our debt
obligations; and
•
our debt level will make us more vulnerable than our competitors with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn
in our business or the economy generally.
Our ability to service our indebtedness will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance,
which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are
beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to
take actions such as reducing distributions to our unitholders, 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. Please read Part II, Item 7
“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources —
Debt and Credit Facilities” for additional information regarding our indebtedness.
Decreases in the price of crude oil may lead to a reduction in the borrowing base under our revolving credit facility and our
ability to issue letters of credit or the requirement that we post substantial amounts of cash collateral for derivative instruments,
which could adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and our ability to distribute cash to our unitholders.
We rely on borrowings and letters of credit under our revolving credit agreement to purchase crude oil or other feedstocks
for our facilities, lease certain precious metals for use in our refinery operations and enter into derivative instruments of crude oil
and natural gas purchases and fuel products sales. From time to time, we also rely on our ability to issue letters of credit to enter
into certain hedging arrangements in an effort to reduce our exposure to adverse fluctuations in the prices of crude oil, natural gas
and crack spreads. The borrowing base under our revolving credit facility is determined weekly or monthly depending upon
availability levels or the existence of a default or event of default. Reductions in the value of our inventories as a result of lower
crude oil prices could result in a reduction in our borrowing base, which would reduce the amount of financial resources available
to meet our capital requirements. If, under certain circumstances, our available capacity under our revolving credit facility falls
below certain threshold amounts, or a default or event of default exists, then our cash balances in a dominion account established
with the administrative agent will be applied on a daily basis to our outstanding obligations under our revolving credit facility. In
addition, decreases in the price of crude oil or increases in crack spreads may require us to post substantial amounts of cash collateral
to our hedging counterparties in order to maintain our derivative instruments. If, due to our financial condition or other reasons,
the borrowing base under our revolving credit facility decreases, we are limited in our ability to issue letters of credit or we are
required to post substantial amounts of cash collateral to our hedging counterparties, our liquidity, financial condition and our
ability to distribute cash to our unitholders could be materially and adversely affected. Please read Part II, Item 7 “Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Debt and Credit
Facilities” for additional information.
We depend on certain key crude oil and other feedstock suppliers for a significant portion of our supply of crude oil and
other feedstocks, and the loss of any of these key suppliers or a material decrease in the supply of crude oil and other feedstocks
generally available to our facilities could materially reduce our ability to make distributions to unitholders.
We purchase crude oil and other feedstocks from major oil companies as well as from various crude oil gatherers and
marketers primarily in Texas, north Louisiana, North Dakota and Canada. In 2015, subsidiaries of Plains supplied us with
approximately 37.4% of our total crude oil supplies under term contracts and month-to-month evergreen crude oil supply contracts.
In 2015, BP supplied us with approximately 14.8% of our total crude oil supplies under the BP Purchase Agreement. Each of our
facilities is dependent on one or more of these suppliers and the loss of any 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. For example, our contracts with Plains are currently month-to-month and terminable upon
90 days’ notice and our contract with BP automatically renewed in April 2015 for a one year term and will continue to automatically
renew for successive one-year terms unless terminated by either party upon 90 days’ notice.
We purchase all of our crude oil supply directly from third-party suppliers, generally under month-to-month evergreen supply
contracts and on the spot market. Evergreen contracts are generally terminable upon 30 days’ notice and purchases on the spot
market may expose us to changes in commodity prices. For additional discussion regarding our crude oil and feedstock supply,
please read Items 1 and 2 “Business and Properties — Our Crude Oil and Feedstock Supply.”
To the extent that our suppliers reduce the volumes of crude oil and other feedstocks that they supply us as a result of declining
production or competition or otherwise, our sales, net income and cash available for distribution to unitholders and payments of
30
our debt obligations would decline unless we were able to acquire comparable supplies of crude oil and other feedstocks 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. 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. A material decrease in either the crude
oil production from or the drilling activity in the fields that supply our refineries, as a result of depressed commodity prices, natural
gas production declines, governmental moratoriums on drilling or production activities, the availability and the cost of capital or
otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume of crude oil we refine.
Trends in crude oil and natural gas prices affect the level of exploration, development, and production activity of our
customers and the demand for our oilfield services and products, which could adversely affect the amount of cash we will have
available for distribution to our unitholders and for payments of our debt obligations.
Demand for our oilfield services and products is particularly sensitive to the level of exploration, development and production
activity of, and the corresponding capital spending by, crude oil and natural gas companies. The level of exploration, development,
and production activity is directly affected by trends in oil and natural gas prices, which historically have been volatile and are
likely to continue to be volatile.
Prices for crude oil and natural gas are subject to large fluctuations in response to relatively minor changes in the supply of
and demand for crude oil and natural gas, market uncertainty and a variety of other economic factors that are beyond our control.
Any prolonged reduction in crude oil and natural gas prices will depress the immediate levels of exploration, development and
production activity which could adversely affect the amount of cash we will have available for distribution to our unitholders and
for payments of our debt obligations. Even the perception of longer-term lower crude oil and natural gas prices by oil and natural
gas companies can similarly reduce or defer major expenditures given the long-term nature of many large-scale development
projects. Factors affecting the prices of crude oil and natural gas include:
•
•
the level of supply and demand for crude oil and natural gas, especially demand for natural gas in the U.S.;
governmental regulations, including the policies of governments regarding the exploration for and production and
development of their oil and natural gas reserves;
• weather conditions and natural disasters;
• worldwide political, military, and economic conditions;
•
•
•
•
the level of crude oil production by non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) countries and the
available excess production capacity within OPEC;
crude oil refining capacity and shifts in end-customer preferences toward fuel efficiency and the use of natural gas;
the cost of producing and delivering crude oil and natural gas; and
potential acceleration of the development of alternative fuels.
During 2015, the oil and natural gas industry experienced a significant decrease in commodity prices driven by a global
supply/demand imbalance for oil and an oversupply of natural gas in the United States. The decline in commodity prices and the
global economic conditions have continued into 2016 and low commodity prices may exist for an extended period. If commodity
prices continue to decline or remain depressed, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
We depend on certain third-party pipelines for transportation of crude oil and refined fuel products, and if these pipelines
become unavailable to us, our revenues and cash available for distributions to our unitholders and payment of our debt
obligations could decline.
Our Shreveport refinery is interconnected to a pipeline that supplies a portion of its crude oil and a pipeline that ships a
portion of its refined fuel products to customers, such as pipelines operated by subsidiaries of Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
and Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Our Superior refinery receives crude oil through the Enbridge Pipeline and the Superior
wholesale business transports products produced at the Superior refinery through several Magellan pipeline terminals in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota. Our Montana refinery receives crude oil through the Front Range pipeline
system via the Bow River Pipeline in Canada. Our San Antonio refinery receives crude oil through the Karnes North Pipeline
System in Texas. Since we do not own or operate any of these pipelines, their continuing operation is not within our control. In
addition, any of these third-party pipelines could become unavailable to transport crude oil or our refined fuel products because
of acts of God, accidents, earthquakes or hurricanes, government regulation, terrorism or other third-party events. For example,
our refinery run rates were affected by an approximately three-week shutdown during May and June 2011 of the ExxonMobil
31
crude oil pipeline serving our Shreveport refinery resulting from the Mississippi River flooding occurring during this period. In
addition, ExxonMobil shut down this pipeline on April 28, 2012, after a leak was discovered. Also, on June 20, 2012, excessive
flooding caused our Superior refinery to reduce its run rate to approximately half its usual throughput for one day and shut down
the portion of the Magellan pipeline that connects our Superior refinery to our Duluth terminal for one day. The unavailability of
any of these third-party pipelines for the transportation of crude oil or our refined fuel products, because of acts of God, accidents,
earthquakes or hurricanes, government regulation, terrorism or other third-party events, could lead to disputes or litigation with
certain of our suppliers or a decline in our sales, net income and cash available for distributions to our unitholders and payments
of our debt obligations.
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 for natural gas as reported on the NYMEX ranged between $3.23 and $1.76 per million British
thermal unit (“MMBtu”), in 2015 and between $6.15 and $2.89 per MMBtu in 2014. 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 11.5% and 15.3% of our total operating expenses included in cost of sales for the years
ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. If our natural gas costs rise, it will adversely affect the amount of cash available
for distribution to our unitholders.
Our refineries, blending and packaging sites, terminals and related facility operations face operating hazards, and the
potential limits on insurance coverage could expose us to potentially significant liability costs.
Our refineries, blending and packaging sites, terminals and related facility operations are subject to certain operating hazards,
and our cash flow from those operations could decline if any of our facilities experiences a major accident, pipeline rupture or
spill, explosion or fire, is damaged by severe weather or other natural disaster, or otherwise is forced to curtail its operations or
shut down. For example, in 2010, our Shreveport refinery experienced an explosion that caused us to shut down one of this refinery’s
environmental operating units between February and August 2010 when it was replaced with a newly constructed unit, resulting
in modified operations during the interim period, including lower throughput rates at certain times during this period. These
operating 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 significant curtailment or suspension of
our related operations.
Although we maintain insurance policies, including personal and property damage and business interruption insurance for
each of our facilities with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles that we, with the advice of our insurance advisors
and brokers, believe are reasonable and prudent, we cannot 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 significant interruption of operations. Our business
interruption insurance will not apply unless a business interruption exceeds 60 days. Furthermore, we may be unable to maintain
or obtain insurance of the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles
for certain of our insurance policies have increased and could escalate further. In some instances, certain insurance could become
unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. In addition, we are not fully insured against all risks incident to
our business because certain risks are not fully insurable, coverage is unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment, do not justify
such expenditures. For example, we are not insured for all environmental liabilities, including, for example, product spills and
other releases at all of our facilities. If we were to incur a significant liability for which we were not fully insured, it could diminish
our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
We may incur significant environmental costs and liabilities in the operation of our refineries, terminals and related facilities
and performance of our oilfield service activities.
The operation of our refineries, blending and packaging sites, terminals, and related facilities as well as performance of our
oilfield service activities subject us to the risk of incurring significant environmental costs and liabilities due to our handling of
petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes, because of air emissions and water discharges related to our operations and activities, and as
a result of historical operations and waste disposal practices at our facilities or in connection with our activities, some of which
may have been conducted by prior owners or operators. We currently own, operate or conduct oilfield services upon properties
that for many years have been used for industrial or oilfield activities, including refining and blending operations or terminal
storage operations, sometimes by third parties over whom we had or continue to have no control with respect to their operations
or waste disposal activities. Petroleum hydrocarbons or wastes have been released on, under or from the properties owned or
operated by us. For example, we are investigating and remediating, in some cases pursuant to government order, soil and groundwater
contamination at our Montana refinery arising from a predecessor operators’ handling of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes.
32
While we believe our costs in pursuing these investigatory and remedial activities are subject to reimbursement under a contractual
indemnification we received from the predecessor operator in the share purchase agreement transferring ownership of this refinery,
this predecessor operator is currently disputing responsibility for reimbursement of certain of these remedial costs being incurred
at our Montana refinery, which dispute has resulted in the filing of a suit by us against the predecessor operator and may ultimately
result in contractual-mandated mediation between the parties pursuant to the share purchase agreement. Joint and several, strict
liability may be incurred in connection with releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes on, under or from our properties and
facilities. 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. 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 or the
owners of properties where we conduct oilfield services, 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. To the extent that the costs
associated with meeting any or all of these requirements are significant and not adequately secured or indemnified for, there could
be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
We are subject to compliance with stringent environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations that
may expose us to significant costs and liabilities.
Our refining, blending and packaging site, terminal and related facility operations as well as our oilfield service activities
are subject to stringent federal, regional, state and local laws and regulations governing worker health and safety, the discharge of
materials into the environment and environmental protection. These laws and regulations impose numerous obligations that are
applicable to our operations, including the obligation to obtain permits to conduct regulated activities, the incurrence of significant
capital expenditures for air pollution control equipment to otherwise limit or prevent releases of pollutants from our refineries,
blending and packaging sites, terminals, and related facilities or with respect to our oilfield services, the expenditure of significant
monies in the application of specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection, the requirement to maintain information
about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and oilfield services and to provide this information to employees,
state and local government authorities, and local residents and the incurrence of significant costs and liabilities for pollution
resulting from our operations and oilfield services or from those of prior owners or operators of our facilities. Numerous federal
governmental authorities, such as the EPA and OSHA as well as state agencies, such as the LDEQ, TCEQ, MDEQ and the WDNR
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 these laws and regulations as well as any issued permits and orders may result in the
assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions, including monetary penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations
or corrective actions, and the issuance of injunctions limiting or preventing some or all of our operations.
On occasion, we receive notices of violation, other enforcement proceedings and regulatory inquiries from governmental
agencies alleging non-compliance with applicable environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations. For
example, we have pending proceedings with the LDEQ involving a series of alleged unauthorized emissions of pollutants from
equipment at the Shreveport refinery, as described in a draft “Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty”
issued in April 2013, for which a penalty of more than $0.1 million may result. In a further example, we have a pending proceeding
with the EPA involving alleged unauthorized emissions of pollutants from flares at the Superior Refinery, as described in a “Notice
of Violation” issued by the EPA on or around June 29, 2012, which included a proposed penalty amount of $0.1 million.
New worker safety and environmental laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased
governmental enforcement or other developments could require us to make additional unforeseen expenditures. Many of these
laws and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to
increase. For example, in 2012, the EPA issued final amendments to the NSPS for petroleum refineries, including standards for
emissions of nitrogen oxides from process heaters and work practice standards and monitoring requirements for flares. In another
example, in April 2014, the EPA published its final Tier 3 fuel standards that require, among other things, a lower allowable sulfur
level in gasoline to no more than 10 ppm by January 1, 2017. In two other examples, on October 1, 2015, the EPA issued a final
rule under the CAA lowering the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion under both the primary and secondary
standards, and on June 29, 2015, the EPA published a final rule that attempted to clarify the agency’s jurisdiction over waters of
the U.S., but which rule is currently subject to various legal impediments, including lawsuits and court stays, as this rule is alleged
to have impermissibly broadened the EPA’s jurisdiction over such waters. One or more of these regulatory initiatives or any new
environmental laws or regulations could impact us by requiring installation of new emission controls on some of our equipment,
resulting in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increasing our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could
adversely impact our business, cash flows and results of operation. Please read Items 1 and 2 “Business and Properties —
Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters” for additional information.
33
Renewable transportation fuels mandates may reduce demand for the petroleum fuels we produce, which could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, and our ability to make distributions to our
unitholders.
The EPA has issued RFS mandates, requiring refiners such as us to blend renewable fuels into the petroleum fuels they
produce and sell in the U.S. We, and other refiners subject to RFS, may meet the RFS requirements by blending the necessary
volumes of renewable transportation fuels produced by us or purchased from third parties. To the extent that refiners will not or
cannot blend renewable fuels into the products they produce in the quantities required to satisfy their obligations under the RFS
program, those refiners must purchase renewable credits, referred to as RINs, to maintain compliance. To the extent that we exceed
the minimum volumetric requirements for blending of renewable transportation fuels, we generate our own RINs for which we
have the option of retaining the RINs for current or future RFS compliance or selling those RINs on the open market.
Under RFS, the volume of renewable fuels that obligated parties are required to blend into their finished petroleum fuels
increases annually over time until 2022. Our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries are nominally subject to
compliance with the RFS mandates. However, in October 2014, the EPA granted both our Shreveport and San Antonio refineries
a “small refinery exemption” under the RFS for the 2013 calendar year, as provided under the CAA. Under these 2013 exemptions
granted by the EPA, both our Shreveport and San Antonio refineries are not subject to the requirements of RFS as an “obligated
party” for fuels produced at these refineries between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. As a result of the exemptions, our
requirements to purchase RINs for 2013 compliance were reduced by approximately 39 million RINs. As result of the exemptions,
we sold approximately 31 million RINs during the fourth quarter 2014, generating cash of approximately $14.5 million and resulting
in an $18.2 million gain.
On November 30, 2015, the EPA issued final multi-year volume mandates for 2014 to 2016. While these volume mandates
are generally lower than the statutory mandates, they represent a slight increase over the volumes initially proposed by the EPA
for this three-year period and such volume mandates could be increased in the future. We have reapplied for the small refinery
exemption at selected refineries for the full year 2014 and are in the process of an assessment to determine which of our fuels
refineries potentially could be eligible for economic hardship exemptions for the 2015 calendar year. While we received a small
refinery exemption for the Shreveport and San Antonio refineries for 2013, there is no assurance that such an exemption will be
obtained for either of these refineries for the 2014 year or in future years, which would result in the need for more RINs for the
applicable calendar year. Our gross 2015 annual RINs obligation, which includes RINs that were required to be secured through
either our own blending or through the purchase of RINs in the open market, was 99 million RINs for the 2015 calendar year.
Existing laws, regulations or regulatory initiatives could change and, notwithstanding that the EPA’s volume mandates for
2014 may be relatively lower than the statutory mandates, they represent a slight increase over the volumes initially proposed by
the EPA for this three-year period and such volume mandates could be increased in the future. Because we do not produce renewable
transportation fuels at all of our refineries, increasing the volume of renewable fuels that must be blended into our produces
displaces an increase volume of our Shreveport, Superior, Montana and San Antonio refineries’ fuel products pool, potentially
resulting in lower earnings and materially adversely affecting our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Moreover, despite
a decline in RINs prices from levels during mid-2013, we cannot currently predict the future prices of RINs and, thus, the expenses
related to acquiring RINs in the future could increase relative to the cost in prior years. The inability to receive an exemption under
the RFS program for one or more of our refineries, any increase in the final minimum volumes renewable fuels that must be blended
with refined petroleum fuels, and/or any increase in the cost to acquire RINs may, individually or in the aggregate, have the potential
to result in significant costs in connection with RIN compliance, which costs could be material. Finally, while there is no current
regulatory standard that authenticates RINs that may be purchased on the open market from third parties, we believe that the RINs
we purchase are from reputable sources, are valid and serve to demonstrate compliance with applicable RFS requirements. However,
if any such RINs purchased by us on the open market are subsequently found to be invalid, then we may incur significant costs,
penalties or other liabilities in connection with replacing such invalid RINs.
Downtime for maintenance at our refineries and facilities will reduce our revenues and cash available for distributions to
our unitholders and payments of our debt obligations.
Our refineries and facilities consist of many processing units, a number of which have been in operation for a long time.
One or more of the units may require additional unscheduled downtime for unanticipated maintenance or repairs that are more
frequent than our scheduled turnaround for each unit every one to five years. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance reduce our
revenues and increase our operating expenses during the period of time that our processing units are not operating and could reduce
our ability to make distributions to our unitholders and payments of our debt obligations.
34
If we do not successfully execute growth through acquisitions, our future growth and ability to increase distributions to our
unitholders may be limited.
Our ability to grow depends in substantial part 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 consummate
acquisitions on favorable terms, (3) unable to obtain financing for these acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, or (4) outbid
by competitors, then our future growth and ability to increase distributions to our unitholders may 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 seen or unforeseen environmental and other liabilities arising out of the acquired businesses
or assets;
the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns;
customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses; and
significant changes in our capitalization and results of operations.
Our asset reconfiguration and enhancement initiatives 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.
Historically we have grown our business in part through the reconfiguration and enhancement of our existing refinery assets.
For example, we completed an expansion project at our Shreveport refinery to increase throughput capacity and crude oil processing
flexibility in May 2008. Additionally, in February 2016 we completed an expansion project that increased production capacity at
our Montana refinery by 15,000 bpd to 25,000 bpd. These expansion projects and the construction of other additions or modifications
to our existing refineries have and will continue to involve numerous regulatory, environmental, political, legal, labor and economic
uncertainties beyond our control, which could cause delays in construction or require the expenditure of significant amounts of
capital, which we may finance with additional indebtedness or by issuing additional equity securities. Our forecasted internal rates
of return on such projects are also based on our projections of future market fundamentals, which are not within our control,
including changes in general economic conditions, available alternative supply and customer demand. For example, the total cost
of the Shreveport refinery expansion project completed in 2008 was approximately $375.0 million and was significantly over
budget due primarily to increased construction labor costs. Future reconfiguration and enhancement projects may not be completed
at the budgeted cost, on schedule, or at all due to the risks described above which could significantly affect our cash flows and
financial condition.
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 or 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 and payments of our debt obligations could be reduced.
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 net losses and may not
make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.
35
Distributions to unitholders and payments of our debt obligations 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 customer’s new requirements. In
addition, the demand for our customers’ end products could decrease, which could 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 overall economic conditions, which may change 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 our unitholders and payments of our debt
obligations could be reduced.
Distributions to unitholders and payments of our debt obligations 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 and payments of our debt obligations. Factors that could lead
to a decrease in market demand include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
a recession or other adverse economic condition that results in lower spending by consumers on gasoline, diesel and
travel;
higher fuel taxes or other governmental or regulatory actions that increase, directly or indirectly, the cost of fuel products;
an increase in fuel economy or the increased use of alternative fuel sources;
an increase in the market price of crude oil that lead to higher refined product prices, which may reduce demand for fuel
products;
competitor actions; and
availability of raw materials.
We depend on unionized labor for the operation of our facilities. Any work stoppages or labor disturbances at these facilities
could disrupt our business.
Substantially all of our operating personnel at our Shreveport, Superior, Montana, Princeton, Cotton Valley, Karns City,
Dickinson and Missouri facilities are employed under collective bargaining agreements. If we are unable 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.
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 (“LCM”) 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. For
example, due to the significant decrease in crude oil prices in 2015 and 2014, we recorded $81.8 million and $74.1 million,
respectively, of LCM adjustments.
The operating results for our fuel products segment, including the asphalt we produce and sell, are seasonal and generally
lower in the first and fourth quarters of the year.
The operating results for our fuel products segment, including 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.
36
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 primarily on sales generated from products processed at the facilities we own. Furthermore, the majority of our
assets and operations are located in Louisiana, Wisconsin, Montana and Texas. 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 and 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 in more
diverse locations.
Climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of GHG could result in increased operating costs and a
decreased demand for our refined products.
The EPA has adopted rules requiring the reporting of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs from specified large GHG
emissions sources in the U.S., including refineries, on an annual basis. Operators of covered sources in the U.S. must annually
monitor and report these GHG emissions to EPA and certain state agencies. Our refineries and certain of our other facilities are
subject to the federal GHG reporting requirements because of combustion GHG emissions and potential fugitive emissions that
exceed reporting thresholds and our compliance with this reporting program has increased our operating costs.
In addition, the EPA has determined that emissions of GHG present a danger to public health and the environment and, based
on these findings, has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the CAA that, among other things, establish Title V and
PSD permitting requirements for certain large stationary sources of GHG that apply to certain of our facilities, including our
refineries, which are potential major sources of GHG emissions. We may be required to install “best available control technology”
to limit emissions of GHG from any new or significantly modified facilities that we may seek to construct in the future if they
would otherwise emit large volumes of GHG. PSD permits with GHG emissions limitations have generally required efficient
combustion requirements on sources that burn large volumes of fossil fuels rather than post-combustion GHG capture requirements.
Also, as part of a settlement in December 2010 with certain environmental groups derived out of legal challenges seeking judicial
review of an EPA final rule on standards of performance for petroleum refineries, the EPA agreed to propose new source performance
standards for GHG emissions from petroleum refineries by December 10, 2011, and to finalize these rules by November 15, 2012.
While no such standards have been proposed by the EPA to date, we expect the agency to continue to pursue this rulemaking.
Depending on the nature of the requirements imposed by the EPA as part of this rulemaking, we could encounter increased operating
costs and capital expenditures that could be significant.
While the U.S. Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHG, there has not been
significant activity in the form of adopted legislation to reduce GHG emissions at the federal level in recent years. In the absence
of federal climate legislation in the U.S., a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or
reducing GHG emissions. If the U.S. Congress undertakes comprehensive tax reform in the coming year, it is possible that such
reform may include a carbon tax, which could impose additional direct costs on our operations and reduce demand for refined
products. The ultimate impact of any carbon tax on our operations would further depend upon whether a carbon tax supplanted
the other federal GHG regulations to which we are currently subject or is administered as an additional program.
Although it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address GHG
emissions would impact our business, any such future laws and regulations could result in increased compliance costs or additional
operating restrictions, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, demand for our products,
results of operations and cash flows. For example, on August 18, 2015, the EPA published a proposed rule that is expected to be
finalized in 2016 and will establish emission standards for methane and volatile organic compounds released from new and modified
oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmissions facilities, as part of President Obama’s Administration’s
efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. Moreover,
on an international level, the U.S. is one of almost 200 nations that agreed on December 12, 2015, to an international climate
change agreement in Paris, France, that calls for countries to set their own GHG emissions targets and be transparent about the
measures each country will use to achieve its GHG emissions targets. It is not possible at this time to predict how or when the U.S.
might impose legal requirements as a result of this international agreement. Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have
concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant
physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climate events that could have
an adverse effect on our assets and operations.
Our business involves the shipping by rail of crude oil including from the Bakken Shale, which involves risks of derailment,
accidents and liabilities associated with cleanup and damages, as well as regulatory changes that may adversely impact our
business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our operations involve the purchasing of crude oil including from the Bakken Shale and shipping it by rail on railcars that
we lease. Recent derailments of trains transporting crude oil in the U.S. and Canada have caused various regulatory agencies and
37
industry organizations, as well as federal, state and municipal governments, to focus attention on transportation of flammable
materials by rail. Transportation safety regulators in the U.S. and Canada are concerned that crude oil from the Bakken Shale may
be more flammable than crude oil from other producing regions and are investigating that issue. On May 8, 2015, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) adopted a final rule that, among other things, imposes a new tank car
design standard, a phase out by as early as January 2018 for older DOT-111 tank cars that are not retrofitted, and a classification
and testing program for unrefined petroleum based products, including crude oil. The rule also includes new operational
requirements such as speed restrictions. The Canadian government’s transportation department has also issued new regulations
that align with the U.S. rule in many respects. We are currently reviewing the final rule in detail to assess the expected impact on
our business, including the potential impact on the tank cars that we lease to transport our products. We are unable to predict what
impact these or other regulatory changes may have, if any, on our business or the industry as a whole. As a result of the final rule,
certain of our tank cars that we lease could be deemed unfit for further commercial use or require retrofits or modifications, and
the costs associated with any required retrofits or modifications could be substantial. In addition, the new tank car design
requirements may result in significant constraints on transportation capacity during the period while tank cars are being retrofitted
or newly constructed to comply with the new regulations. Such transportation capacity constraints could increase the cost of
transporting crude oil by rail. We cannot assure that costs incurred to comply with any new standards and regulations, including
those finalized by PHMSA in May 2015, will not be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. In
addition, any derailment involving crude oil that we have purchased or are shipping may result in claims being brought against us
that may involve significant liabilities. Although we believe that we are adequately insured against such events, we cannot provide
assurance that our policies will cover the entirety of any damages that may arise from such an event.
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 and
payments of our debt obligations.
The enactment of derivatives legislation could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to hedge
risks associated with our business.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal
oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The
Act requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing
the Act. Although the CFTC has finalized certain regulations, others remain to be finalized or implemented and it is not possible
at this time to predict when this will be accomplished.
In its rulemaking under the Act, in November 2013, the CFTC proposed new rules to set position limits for certain futures
and option contracts in the major energy markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents, subject to exceptions for
certain bona fide hedging transactions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, their impact on us is uncertain at this
time.
The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing and the associated
rules also require us, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with clearing and trade-execution requirements
or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. Although we believe that we qualify for the end-user exceptions
to the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements with respect to those swaps entered to hedge our commercial risks,
the application of such requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of
the swaps that we use for hedging. In addition, certain banking regulators and the CFTC have recently adopted final rules establishing
minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps. Although we expect to qualify for the end-user exception from such margin
requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks, the application of such requirements to other market participants,
such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. If any of our swaps do not qualify
for the commercial end-user exception, posting of collateral could impact liquidity and reduce cash available to us for capital
expenditures, therefore reducing our ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flow.
The Act and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative instruments, materially alter the terms
of derivative instruments, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter and reduce our ability to
monetize or restructure our existing derivatives contracts. An increase in the cost of derivatives contracts would affect our results
of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders and payments of our debt obligations. If we reduce our use of
derivatives as a result of the Act and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be
less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures and make distributions to our
unitholders and payments of our debt obligations. Finally, the Act was intended, in part, to reduce the volatility of oil and natural
38
gas prices, which some legislators attributed to speculative trading in derivatives and commodity instruments related to oil and
natural gas. Our revenues could therefore be adversely affected if a consequence of the Act and regulations is to lower commodity
prices. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, our financial condition, and our results
of operations.
In addition, the European Union and other non-U.S. jurisdictions are implementing regulations with respect to the derivatives
market. To the extent we transact with counterparties in foreign jurisdictions, we may become subject to such regulations, the
impact of which is not clear at this time.
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. In addition to the employment
agreements in place with respect to F. William Grube and R. Patrick Murray, II, on September 14, 2015, we entered into an
employment agreement with Timothy Go, Chief Executive Officer. We do not maintain any key-man life insurance.
An increase in interest rates will cause our debt service obligations to increase.
Borrowings under our revolving credit facility bear interest at a rate equal to prime plus a basis points margin or LIBOR
plus a basis points margin, at our option. As of December 31, 2015, there were outstanding borrowings under our revolving credit
facility of $111.0 million and $66.8 million in standby letters of credit were issued under our revolving credit facility. The interest
rate is subject to adjustment based on fluctuations in the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) or prime rate, as applicable.
An increase in the interest rates associated with our floating-rate debt would increase our debt service costs and affect our results
of operations and cash flow available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, an increase in interest rates could adversely
affect our future ability to obtain financing or materially increase the cost of any additional financing.
A change of control could result in us facing substantial repayment obligations under our revolving credit agreement, our
senior notes and our Collateral Trust Agreement.
Certain events relating to a change of control of our general partner, our partnership and our operating subsidiaries would
constitute an event of default under our revolving credit agreement, the indentures governing our senior notes and our Collateral
Trust Agreement. In addition, an event of default under our revolving credit agreement would likely constitute an event of default
under our master derivatives contracts and the BP Purchase Agreement. As a result, upon a change of control event, we may be
required immediately to repay the outstanding principal, any accrued interest on and any other amounts owed by us under our
revolving credit facility and the senior notes and the outstanding payment obligations under our master derivatives contracts and
the BP Purchase Agreement. The source of funds for these repayments would be our available cash or cash generated from other
sources and there can be no assurance that we would have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to repay such indebtedness and
other payment obligations in full. In addition, our obligations under our revolving credit facility are secured by a first priority lien
on our cash, accounts receivable, inventory and certain related assets and our obligations under our master derivatives contracts
and the BP Purchase Agreement are secured by a first priority lien on our real property, plant and equipment, fixtures, intellectual
property, certain financial assets, certain investment property, commercial tort claims, chattel paper, documents, instruments and
proceeds of the forgoing (including proceeds of hedge agreements). If we are unable to repay our indebtedness under the revolving
credit facility, the payment obligations under our master derivative contracts or the payment obligations under the BP Purchase
Agreement or obtain waivers of such defaults, then the lenders under our revolving credit facility, the derivative counterparties
under our master derivative contracts and BP would have the right to foreclose on those assets, which would have a material
adverse effect on us. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement on the ability of our general partner to enter into a
transaction which would trigger the change of control provisions of our revolving credit facility agreement, the indentures governing
our senior notes or our Collateral Trust Agreement.
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 derivative
instruments. 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 and payments of our debt obligations.
39
Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us
At February 29, 2016, the families of our chairman, executive vice chairman, The Heritage Group and certain of their
affiliates own an approximate 21.4% 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.
At February 29, 2016, the families of our chairman, executive vice chairman, the Heritage Group, and certain of their affiliates
own an approximate 21.4% limited partner interest in us. In addition, The Heritage Group and the families of our chairman and
executive vice chairman own our general partner. Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and its affiliates, on
the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, the general partner may favor its own
interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following
situations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as its affiliates, in resolving
conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders;
our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under our partnership agreement and has also
restricted the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without the limitations, might constitute breaches
of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing common units, unitholders consent to some actions and conflicts of interest
that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under Delaware 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 available for distribution to our
unitholders and payments of our debt obligations;
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 incentive distribution rights; 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 incentive distributions.
The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates may engage in limited competition with us.
Pursuant to the omnibus agreement we entered into in connection with our initial public offering, The Heritage Group and
its controlled affiliates have agreed not to engage in, whether by acquisition or otherwise, the business of refining or marketing
specialty lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel products in the continental U.S. for so
long as it controls us. This restriction does not apply to certain assets and businesses which are more fully described under Part
III, Item 13 “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence — 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, except to the extent described
above.
Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s 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
of our partnership agreement;
40
•
•
•
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 person’s conduct was criminal.
By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder agrees 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 management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders do not elect our
general partner or its board of directors, and 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 are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, the vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of all
outstanding units voting together as a single class is required to remove the general partner. At February 29, 2016, the owners of
our general partner and certain of their affiliates own approximately 21.4% of our common units. 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.
Our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of those unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units.
Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a
person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner, its affiliates, their transferees,
and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any
matter. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire
information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction
of management.
Our general partner interest or 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 and payments of our debt obligations could be reduced.
We may issue additional common units without unitholder approval, which would dilute our current unitholders’ existing
ownership interests.
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. The issuance of additional common units or other equity
securities of equal or senior rank to the common units will have the following effects:
41
•
•
•
•
•
our unitholders’ proportionate ownership interest in us may decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each unit may decrease;
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.
Our general partner’s 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.
We have a holding company structure in which our subsidiaries conduct our operations and own our operating assets and
our ability to distribute cash to our unitholders and make payments of our debt obligations depends on the performance of our
subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us.
We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have
no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to distribute cash to our unitholders
and make payments of debt obligations depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us.
The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us is restricted by our revolving credit facility and the indentures governing
our senior notes and may be restricted by, among other things, applicable state laws and other laws and regulations. If we are
unable to obtain the funds necessary to distribute cash to our unitholders or make payments of debt obligations, we may be required
to adopt one or more alternatives, such as a refinancing of our indebtedness or incurring borrowings under our revolving credit
facility. We cannot assure unitholders that we would be able to refinance our indebtedness or that the terms on which we could
refinance our indebtedness would be favorable.
Cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce cash available for distribution to unitholders
and payments of our debt obligations.
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 and payments of our debt obligations. These expenses will include all costs incurred by our general
partner and its affiliates in managing and operating us. Please read Part III, Item 13 “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
and Director Independence.”
Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units, our
general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which right it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all,
but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As
a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units to our general partner, its affiliates or us at an undesirable time or
price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their common
units. At February 29, 2016, our general partner and its affiliates own approximately 21.4% of our 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 state’s 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.
42
Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions that were wrongfully distributed to them.
Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under
Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which we call the Delaware Act, we may not make a
distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law
provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution
and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution
amount. Purchasers of units who become limited partners are liable for the obligations of the transferring limited partner to make
contributions to the partnership that are known to the purchaser of the units at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown
obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their
partnership interest and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a
distribution is permitted.
Our common units have a low trading volume compared to other units representing limited partner interests.
Our common units are traded publicly on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “CLMT.” However, our
common units have a low average daily trading volume compared to many other units representing limited partner interests quoted
on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
The market price of our common units may continue to be volatile and may also be influenced by many factors, some of
which are beyond our control, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
our quarterly distributions;
our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in our industry;
changes in commodity prices or refining margins;
loss of a large customer;
announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts or acquisitions;
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;
general economic conditions;
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units or changes in financial estimates by analysts;
future sales of our common units; and
the other factors described in Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report.
Tax Risks to Common Unitholders
Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being
subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us as a corporation for federal
income tax purposes, or if we become subject to material additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then
our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a
partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Despite the fact that we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would be treated as a corporation for
federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations and private
letter rulings we have received with respect to certain aspects of our business, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income
requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a
corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income
at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again
as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits would flow through to our unitholders. Because a
tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.
Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation 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.
Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects
us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to a material amount of entity-level taxation for federal, state or local
income tax purposes, the anticipated quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect
43
the impact of that law on us. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level
taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. Imposition of a similar tax on us in the
jurisdictions in which we operate or in other jurisdictions to which we may expand could substantially reduce our cash available
for distribution to our unitholders.
The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential
legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.
The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common
units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. For example, the
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget proposed by the President recommends that certain publicly traded partnerships earning income from
activities related to fossil fuels be taxed as corporations beginning in 2022. From time to time, members of Congress propose and
consider such substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. If successful,
the Obama Administration’s proposal or other similar proposals could eliminate the qualifying income exception to the treatment
of all publicly-traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income
tax purposes.
In addition, the IRS, on May 5, 2015, issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) concerning which activities
give rise to qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. We have requested and obtained
favorable private letter rulings (the “Rulings”) from the IRS with respect to certain aspects of our business. We believe that our
Rulings are largely consistent with the Proposed Regulations, and we have participated in the comment process in order to confirm
that the final regulations are consistent with our Rulings. However, finalized regulations could modify the amount of our gross
income that we are able to treat as qualifying income for the purposes of the qualifying income requirement.
Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or
impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income
tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such
changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.
Unitholders will be required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash distributions
from us, including their share of income from the cancellation of debt.
Unitholders will be required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their share of
our taxable income, whether or not they receive 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 actual tax liability which results from that income.
In response to current market conditions, we may engage in transactions to delever the Partnership and manage our liquidity
that may result in income and gain to our unitholders without a corresponding cash distribution. For example, if we sell assets and
use the proceeds to repay existing debt or fund capital expenditures, you may be allocated taxable income and gain resulting from
the sale without receiving a cash distribution. Further, taking advantage of opportunities to reduce our existing debt, such as debt
exchanges, debt repurchases or modifications of our existing debt, could result “cancellation of indebtedness income” (also referred
to as “COD income”) being allocated to our unitholders as taxable income. Unitholders may be allocated COD income, and income
tax liabilities arising therefrom may exceed cash distributions. The ultimate effect of any such allocations will depend on the
unitholder's individual tax position with respect to its units. Unitholders are encouraged to consult their tax advisors with respect
to the consequences to them of COD income.
The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve-month period will result in the
termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes.
We will be considered to have terminated as a partnership 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. For purposes of determining whether
the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same interest will be counted only once. Our termination would, among
other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all unitholders, which would result in us filing two tax returns for one
calendar year and could result in a significant deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In
the case of a unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than the calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in
more than 12 months of our taxable income or loss being includable in his taxable income for the year of termination. Our termination
currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, but it would result in our being treated
as a new partnership for federal income tax purposes. If we were treated as a new partnership, we would be required to make new
tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we are unable to determine that a termination occurred. The IRS recently announced
a relief procedure whereby if a publicly-traded partnership that has technically terminated requests and the IRS grants special
relief, among other things, the partnership may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two short
tax periods included in the year in which the termination occurs.
44
Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be more or less than expected.
If our unitholders sell their common units, they will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount
realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of a unitholder’s allocable share of our net
taxable income result in a decrease in such unitholder’s tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess
distributions with respect to the units they sell will, in effect, become taxable income to our unitholders if they sell such units at
a price greater than their tax basis in those units, even if the price they receive is less than their original cost. Furthermore, a
substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income due to potential
recapture of depreciation and deductions and certain other items. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s
share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if unitholders sell their units, they may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash
they receive from the sale.
Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax
consequences to them.
Investments in common units by tax-exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts
(known as “IRAs”), and non-U.S. persons raise issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to
organizations that are exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business
taxable income and will be taxable to them. Allocations and/or distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding
taxes imposed at the highest effective tax rate applicable to non-U.S. persons, and each non-U.S. person will be required to file a
U.S. federal tax return and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. If you are a tax-exempt entity or a non-U.S. person, you
should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.
If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we take, the market for our common units may be adversely impacted
and the cost of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Recently enacted legislation alters the procedures for assessing and collecting taxes due for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2017, in a manner that could substantially reduce 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 the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any
contest by the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. Our
costs of any contest by the IRS will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner because the costs will reduce
our cash available for distribution.
Recently enacted legislation applicable to us for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, alters the procedures for
auditing large partnerships and also alters the procedures for assessing and collecting taxes due (including applicable penalties
and interest) as a result of an audit. Unless we are eligible to (and choose to) elect to issue revised Schedules K-1 to our partners
with respect to an audited and adjusted return, the IRS may assess and collect taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest)
directly from us in the year in which the audit is completed under the new rules. If we are required to pay taxes, penalties and
interest as the result of audit adjustments, cash available for distribution to our unitholders may be substantially reduced. In addition,
because payment would be due for the taxable year in which the audit is completed, unitholders during that taxable year would
bear the expense of the adjustment even if they were not unitholders during the audited taxable year.
We have subsidiaries that are treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income
taxes.
Even though we (as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, some of
our operations are currently conducted through subsidiaries that are organized as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
The taxable income, if any, of such subsidiaries are subject to corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes, which may reduce the
cash available for distribution to us and, in turn, to our unitholders. If the IRS or other state or local jurisdictions were to successfully
assert that these corporations have more tax liability than we anticipate or legislation was enacted that increased the corporate tax
rate, the cash available for distribution could be further reduced. The income tax return filings positions taken by these corporate
subsidiaries require significant judgment, use of estimates, and the interpretation and application of complex tax laws. Significant
judgment is also required in assessing the timing and amounts of deductible and taxable items. Despite our belief that the income
tax return positions taken by these subsidiaries is fully supportable, certain positions may be successfully challenged by the IRS,
state or local jurisdictions.
We will 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 will adopt 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
45
these tax benefits or the amount of gain from unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of
our common units or result in audit adjustments to their tax returns.
We will prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month
based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is
transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and
deduction among our unitholders.
We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units
each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a
particular common unit is transferred. Nonetheless, we allocate certain deductions for depreciation of capital additions based upon
the date the underlying property is placed in service. The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently adopted final Treasury
Regulations allowing a similar monthly simplifying convention for taxable years beginning on or after August 3, 2015. However,
such regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to successfully
challenge our proration method or new Treasury Regulations were issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items
of income, gain, loss, and deduction among our unitholders.
We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and
deduction. The IRS may challenge these methods or the resulting allocations, and such a challenge could adversely affect the
value of our common units.
In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the
fair market value of our respective assets. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding
valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates using a methodology based on the market value of our common
units as a means to measure the fair market value of our respective assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and
the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.
A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount, character, and timing of taxable
income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from our unitholders’ sale of common
units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax
returns without the benefit of additional deductions.
A unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale
of common units) may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, he would no longer be treated for tax
purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from
the disposition.
Because there are no specific rules governing the U.S. federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a
unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units. In
that case, the unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the
period of the loan and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan,
any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any
cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders
desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan to a short seller should modify any
applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their common units.
Unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in states where they do not live as
a result of investing in our common units.
In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, our unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes,
unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we
conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. We own assets and
conduct business in 47 states. Our unitholders may be required to file foreign, state and local income tax returns and pay state and
local income taxes in any state in which we now or may conduct business in the future. Further, they may be subject to penalties
for failure to comply with those requirements. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own assets or conduct
business in additional states or foreign jurisdictions that impose a personal income tax. It is the responsibility of our unitholders
to file all U.S. federal, foreign, state and local tax returns.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
46
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are not a party to, and our property is not the subject of, any pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine
litigation incidental to our business. 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 and Occupational Health and Safety Matters” for
a description of our current regulatory matters related to the environment, health and safety. Additionally, the information provided
under Note 6 “Commitments and Contingencies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data — Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements” is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
47
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common units are quoted and traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “CLMT.”
The following table shows the low and high sales prices per common unit, as reported by NASDAQ, for the periods indicated.
Cash distributions presented below represent amounts declared subsequent to each respective quarter end based on the results of
that quarter.
2014:
First quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Fourth quarter
2015:
First quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Fourth quarter
Low
High
Cash Distribution
per Unit (1)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24.23
25.74
26.60
18.66
20.65
24.03
18.26
17.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
30.60
32.81
33.30
29.70
29.14
28.49
28.33
27.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
(1) We also paid cash distributions to our general partner with respect to its 2% general partner interest and, to the extent
distributions exceeded $0.495 per unit, its incentive distribution rights, as described below in “Cash Distribution Policy —
General Partner Interest and Incentive Distribution Rights.”
As of February 29, 2016, there were approximately 42 unitholders of record of our common units. The actual number of
unitholders is greater than the number of holders of record. As of February 29, 2016, there were 75,884,400 common units
outstanding. The last reported sale price of our common units by NASDAQ on February 26, 2016, was $9.55.
Cash Distribution Policy
General. Within 45 days after the end of each quarter, we distribute our available cash (as defined in our 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; and
• 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.
Cash Distribution Policy. We distribute to the holders of common units on a quarterly basis at least the minimum quarterly
distribution of $0.45 per unit, or $1.80 in aggregate per year, to the extent we have sufficient cash from our operations after
establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our general partner. However, there is
no guarantee that we will pay the minimum quarterly distribution on the units in any quarter. Even if our cash distribution policy
is not modified or revoked, the amount of distributions paid under our policy and the decision to make any distribution is determined
by our general partner, taking into consideration the terms of our partnership agreement. We will be prohibited from making any
distributions to unitholders if it would cause an event of default, or an event of default exists, under our debt instruments, including
our revolving credit agreement and the indentures governing our 2021 Notes, 2022 Notes and 2023 Notes. Please read Part II,
48
Item 7 “Management’s 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 debt instruments that restrict our ability to make
distributions. On February 12, 2016, we paid a quarterly cash distribution of $0.685 per unit on all outstanding units totaling
approximately $57.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, to all unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 2, 2016.
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 1,548,660 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 partner’s 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 in our partnership agreement) in excess of
$0.495 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. Our general partner earned incentive
distribution rights of approximately $16.8 million and $15.4 million during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014,
respectively.
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:
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
First Target Distribution
Second Target Distribution
Third Target Distribution
Thereafter
Equity Compensation Plans
Total Quarterly
Distribution
Target Amount
Per Common Unit
$0.45
up to $0.495
above $0.495 up to $0.563
above $0.563 up to $0.675
above $0.675
Marginal Percentage
Interest in Distributions
Unitholders
98%
98%
85%
75%
50%
General Partner
2%
2%
15%
25%
50%
The equity compensation plan information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K in response to this Item 5 is
incorporated by reference into Part III, Item 12 “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related
Unitholder Matters” of this Annual Report.
Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
None.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following table shows selected historical consolidated financial and operating data of the Company. The selected historical
consolidated financial data as of and after December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011 includes the operations acquired as part
of the acquisitions of Superior, Missouri, Calumet Packaging, Royal Purple, Montana, San Antonio, Bel-Ray, United Petroleum,
Anchor Drilling Fluids and Anchor Oilfield Services from their respective dates of acquisition, September 30, 2011, January 3,
2012, January 6, 2012, July 3, 2012, October 1, 2012, January 2, 2013, December 10, 2013, February 28, 2014, March 31, 2014,
and August 1, 2014.
The following table includes the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow.
For a reconciliation of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow to net income (loss) and net cash provided by
operating activities, our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity measures calculated in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), please read “— Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”
We derived the information in the following table from, and the information should be read together with, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to, the historical consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included in Item 8
“Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” except for operating data, such as sales volume, feedstock runs and facility
49
production. The following table also should be read together with Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
2015
2014
Year Ended December 31,
2013
(In millions)
2012
2011
$
4,212.8
$
5,791.1
$
5,421.4
$
4,657.3
$
3,618.2
594.6
5,261.4
529.7
5,011.4
410.0
4,144.1
513.2
Summary of Operations Data:
Sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Operating costs and expenses:
Selling
General and administrative
Transportation
Taxes other than income taxes
Asset impairment
Insurance recoveries
Other
Operating income
Other income (expense):
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Other
Total other expense
Net income (loss) before income taxes
Income tax expense (benefit)
Net income (loss)
3,134.9
2,860.8
274.1
12.2
38.6
94.2
5.7
—
(8.7)
6.8
41.6
60.9
107.9
9.1
1.6
—
6.2
285.9
125.3
(85.6)
—
9.5
(3.8)
—
0.5
(79.4)
206.5
0.8
$
205.7
$
(48.7)
(15.1)
(7.9)
(10.4)
—
0.8
(81.3)
44.0
1.0
43.0
146.0
135.5
175.5
17.7
33.8
—
11.1
75.0
149.6
98.3
171.4
13.4
36.0
—
14.2
46.8
(104.9)
(46.6)
(110.8)
(89.9)
8.1
43.8
(39.5)
(61.5)
1.6
(242.8)
(167.8)
(28.4)
$
(139.4) $
(0.6)
(3.4)
1.1
(159.8)
(113.0)
(0.8)
(112.2) $
62.6
82.1
142.7
14.2
10.5
—
6.3
91.6
(96.8)
(14.6)
(4.7)
25.7
(0.3)
3.0
(87.7)
3.9
0.4
3.5
50
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
(In millions, except unit, per unit and operating data)
Weighted average limited partner units
outstanding:
Basic
Diluted
Limited partners’ interest basic net
income (loss) per unit
Limited partners’ interest diluted net
income (loss) per unit
Cash distributions declared per limited
partner unit
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Property, plant and equipment, net
Total assets
Accounts payable
Long-term debt
Total partners’ capital
Cash Flow Data:
Net cash flow provided by (used in):
Operating activities
Investing activities
Financing activities
Other Financial Data:
EBITDA
Adjusted EBITDA
Distributable Cash Flow
Operating Data (bpd): (1)
Total sales volume (2)
Total feedstock runs (3)
Total facility production (4)
74,896,096
74,896,096
69,671,827
69,671,827
67,938,784
67,938,784
55,559,183
55,676,741
42,598,876
42,644,086
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(2.05) $
(1.80) $
(0.17) $
(2.05) $
(1.80) $
(0.17) $
2.74
1,719.2
2,944.7
316.6
1,773.4
603.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
376.4
$
(389.0) $
9.7
129.1
257.7
161.9
$
$
$
$
2.74
1,464.4
3,085.1
419.9
1,678.8
810.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
226.8
$
(658.8) $
$
319.4
226.3
305.9
146.3
$
$
$
2.70
1,160.4
2,658.4
355.8
1,081.1
1,062.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
39.1
$
(370.3) $
$
420.1
233.1
241.5
18.8
$
$
$
126,216
123,051
122,795
122,852
117,427
114,146
116,477
110,237
106,592
3.51
3.50
2.30
986.9
2,223.6
332.6
834.1
889.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
380.1
(624.2) $
$
276.2
383.7
404.6
281.1
$
$
$
97,789
97,600
96,172
0.98
0.98
1.94
842.1
1,705.7
302.8
560.7
728.9
63.8
(460.4)
396.7
170.9
211.0
127.2
66,134
69,295
70,909
(1) Operating data excludes operations of the oilfield services segment.
(2) Total sales volume includes sales from the production at our facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements, sales of inventories and the resale of crude oil to third party customers. Total sales volume
includes the sale of purchased fuel product blendstocks, such as ethanol and biodiesel, as components of finished fuel products
in our fuel products segment sales.
(3) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
(4) Total facility production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and at certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
The difference between total facility production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the
input of feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
51
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
We include in this Annual Report the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash
Flow, and provide reconciliations of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow to net income (loss) and net cash
provided by operating activities, our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity measures calculated and
presented in accordance with GAAP.
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow 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 and support our indebtedness;
our operating performance and return on capital as compared to those of other companies in our industry, without regard
to financing or capital structure; and
the viability of acquisitions and capital expenditure projects and the overall rates of return on alternative investment
opportunities.
We believe that these non-GAAP measures are useful to analysts and investors as they exclude transactions not related to
our core cash operating activities and provide metrics to analyze our ability to pay distributions. We believe that excluding these
transactions allows investors to meaningfully analyze trends and performance of our core cash operations.
We define EBITDA for any period as net income (loss) plus interest expense (including debt issuance and extinguishment
costs), income taxes and depreciation and amortization.
We define Adjusted EBITDA for any period as: (1) net income (loss) plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) income taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) impairment; (e) unrealized losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities;
(f) realized gains under derivative instruments excluded from the determination of net income (loss); (g) non-cash equity based
compensation expense and other non-cash items (excluding items such as accruals of cash expenses in a future period or amortization
of a prepaid cash expense) that were deducted in computing net income (loss); (h) debt refinancing fees, premiums and penalties
and (i) all extraordinary, unusual or non-recurring items of gain or loss, or revenue or expense; minus (3)(a) unrealized gains from
mark to market accounting for hedging activities; (b) realized losses under derivative instruments excluded from the determination
of net income and (c) other non-recurring expenses and unrealized items that reduced net income (loss) for a prior period, but
represent a cash item in the current period.
We define Distributable Cash Flow for any period as Adjusted EBITDA less replacement and environmental capital
expenditures, turnaround costs, cash interest expense (consolidated interest expense less non-cash interest expense), income (loss)
from unconsolidated affiliates, net of cash distributions and income tax expense (benefit). Distributable Cash Flow is used by us
and our investors and analysts to analyze our ability to pay distributions.
The definitions of Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow that are presented in this Annual Report reflect the
calculation of “Consolidated Cash Flow” contained in the indentures governing our 2021 Notes, 2022 Notes and 2023 Notes (as
defined in this Annual Report). We are required to report Consolidated Cash Flow to the holders of our 2021 Notes, 2022 Notes
and 2023 Notes and Adjusted EBITDA to the lenders under our revolving credit facility, and these measures are used by them to
determine our compliance with certain covenants governing those debt instruments. Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash
Flow that are presented in this Annual Report for prior periods have been updated to reflect the use of the new calculations. Please
read Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and
Capital Resources — Debt and Credit Facilities” for additional details regarding the covenants governing our debt instruments.
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow should not be considered alternatives to net income (loss), operating
income, net cash provided by operating activities or any other measure of financial performance or liquidity presented in accordance
with GAAP. In evaluating our performance as measured by EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow, management
recognizes and considers the limitations of these measurements. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do not reflect our obligations
for the payment of income taxes, interest expense or other obligations such as capital expenditures. Accordingly, EBITDA, Adjusted
EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow are only three of the measurements that management utilizes. Moreover, our EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of another company because
all companies may not calculate EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow in the same manner.
The following tables present a reconciliation of both net income (loss) to EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable
Cash Flow, and Distributable Cash Flow, Adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash provided by operating activities, our most
directly comparable GAAP financial performance and liquidity measures, for each of the periods indicated.
52
43.0
48.7
15.1
63.1
1.0
10.9
11.4
—
7.4
211.0
23.7
45.0
14.1
—
1.0
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Year Ended December 31,
(In millions)
Reconciliation of Net income (loss) to EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow:
Net income (loss)
$
(139.4) $
(112.2) $
3.5
$
205.7
$
Add:
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Depreciation and amortization
Income tax expense (benefit)
EBITDA
Add:
Unrealized (gain) loss on
derivatives
Realized gain (loss) on derivatives,
not included in net income (loss) or
settled in a prior period
Amortization of turnaround costs
Impairment charges (1)
Non-cash equity based
compensation and other items
Adjusted EBITDA
Less:
$
$
104.9
46.6
145.4
(28.4)
129.1
$
110.8
89.9
138.6
(0.8)
226.3
96.8
14.6
117.8
0.4
85.6
—
91.6
0.8
$
233.1
$
383.7
$
170.9
39.5
$
0.6
$
(25.7) $
3.8
$
10.4
(10.0)
29.0
58.1
12.0
6.6
24.5
36.0
11.9
(1.8)
15.9
10.5
9.5
(5.0)
13.4
1.6
7.1
$
257.7
$
305.9
$
241.5
$
404.6
$
Replacement and environmental
capital expenditures (2)
Cash interest expense (3)
Turnaround costs
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Income tax expense (benefit)
44.2
98.2
19.3
(37.5)
(28.4)
Distributable Cash Flow
$
161.9
$
31.8
104.4
27.6
(3.4)
(0.8)
146.3
64.2
89.8
68.6
(0.3)
0.4
28.3
79.5
14.9
—
0.8
$
18.8
$
281.1
$
127.2
(1)
Impairment charges for 2015 include a $33.8 million goodwill impairment charge related to the oilfield services segment
and $24.3 million impairment charge related to our investment in Juniper.
(2) Replacement capital expenditures are defined as those capital expenditures which do not increase operating capacity or reduce
operating costs and exclude turnaround costs. Environmental capital expenditures include asset additions to meet or exceed
environmental and operating regulations.
(3) Represents consolidated interest expense less non-cash interest expense.
53
2015
2014
Year Ended December 31,
2013
(In millions)
2012
2011
Reconciliation of Distributable Cash Flow, Adjusted EBITDA and
EBITDA to Net cash provided by operating activities:
Distributable Cash Flow
161.9
$
$
146.3
$
18.8
$
281.1
$
127.2
Add:
Replacement and environmental capital
expenditures (1)
Cash interest expense (2)
Turnaround costs
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Income tax expense (benefit)
Adjusted EBITDA
Less:
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives
Realized gain (loss) on derivatives, not
included in net income (loss) or settled in a
prior period
Amortization of turnaround costs
Impairment charges (3)
Non-cash equity based compensation and
other items
EBITDA
Add:
$
$
$
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives
Cash interest expense (2)
Asset impairment
Lower of cost or market inventory
adjustment
Non-cash equity based compensation
Deferred income tax benefit
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Amortization of turnaround costs
Income tax (expense) benefit
Provision for doubtful accounts
Debt extinguishment costs
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable
Inventories
Other current assets
Turnaround costs
Derivative activity
Other noncurrent assets
Accounts payable
Accrued interest payable
Accrued income taxes payable
Other liabilities
Other, including changes in non-current
liabilities
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
44.2
98.2
19.3
(37.5)
(28.4)
257.7
39.5
(10.0)
29.0
58.1
$
$
31.8
104.4
27.6
(3.4)
(0.8)
305.9
0.6
6.6
24.5
36.0
$
$
64.2
89.8
68.6
(0.3)
0.4
241.5
$
28.3
79.5
14.9
—
0.8
404.6
(25.7) $
3.8
$
$
(1.8)
15.9
10.5
(5.0)
13.4
1.6
12.0
129.1
$
11.9
226.3
$
9.5
233.1
$
7.1
383.7
$
39.5
(98.2)
33.8
81.8
9.8
(28.5)
61.5
29.0
28.4
1.1
(37.5)
138.0
47.3
3.4
(19.3)
(7.0)
—
(119.9)
(6.5)
—
84.2
0.6
(104.4)
36.0
74.1
6.5
(1.2)
3.4
24.5
0.8
0.5
(70.9)
(0.4)
43.9
3.9
(27.6)
6.7
—
(13.1)
15.1
—
(2.1)
(25.7)
(89.8)
10.5
(2.1)
4.8
—
0.3
15.9
(0.4)
0.1
(11.2)
(32.3)
16.4
6.8
(68.6)
(1.8)
(0.1)
6.8
(1.0)
(27.6)
2.7
3.8
(79.5)
1.6
6.1
6.5
—
—
13.4
(0.8)
—
—
34.6
11.8
15.8
(14.9)
(5.0)
(4.0)
11.1
13.0
(16.1)
4.6
6.4
376.4
$
4.2
226.8
$
2.3
39.1
$
(5.6)
380.1
$
23.7
45.0
14.1
—
1.0
211.0
10.4
10.9
11.4
—
7.4
170.9
10.4
(45.0)
—
1.9
4.9
—
—
11.4
(1.0)
0.4
(0.7)
(54.5)
(168.9)
(0.4)
(14.1)
11.7
(0.4)
131.3
7.4
0.4
(2.5)
0.6
63.8
(1) Replacement capital expenditures are defined as those capital expenditures which do not increase operating capacity or reduce
operating costs and exclude turnaround costs. Environmental capital expenditures include asset additions to meet or exceed
environmental and operating regulations.
(2) Represents consolidated interest expense less non-cash interest expense.
(3)
Impairment charges for 2015 include a $33.8 million goodwill impairment charge related to the oilfield services segment
and $24.3 million impairment charge related to our investment in Juniper.
54
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The historical consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report reflect all of the assets, liabilities and results
of operations of the Company. The following discussion analyzes the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company realigned its
reportable segments for financial reporting purposes as a result of the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions in 2014 resulting in a new
segment, oilfield services. This reporting change did not impact segment reporting for 2013 or the Company’s consolidated results
for any year. Unitholders should read the following discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements and notes of the Company included elsewhere
in this Annual Report.
Overview
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North America. We are
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, and own specialty and fuel products facilities primarily located in northwest Louisiana,
northwest Wisconsin, northern Montana, western Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, eastern Missouri and North Dakota. We own
and lease oilfield services locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico,
New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio. We own and lease additional facilities, primarily related to production and
distribution of specialty, fuel and oilfield services products, throughout the United States (“U.S.”). Our business is organized into
three segments: specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services. In our specialty products segment, we process crude oil
and other feedstocks into a wide variety of customized lubricating oils, white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums 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. We also blend and market specialty products through our Royal Purple, Bel-
Ray, TruFuel and Quantum brands. In our fuel products segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel and fuel-related
products, including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt and heavy fuel oils, and from time to time resell purchased crude oil to third
party customers. Our oilfield services segment manufactures and markets products and provides oilfield services including drilling
fluids, completion fluids and solids control services to the oil and gas exploration industry throughout the U.S.
2015 Update
Financial Results
We reported a net loss of $139.4 million in 2015, versus a net loss of $112.2 million in 2014. We reported Adjusted EBITDA
(as defined in Item 6 “Selected Financial Data — Non-GAAP Financial Measures”) of $257.7 million in 2015, versus $305.9
million in 2014. We generated $376.4 million of cash flow from operations in 2015, versus $226.8 million in 2014. Distributable
Cash Flow (“DCF”) (as defined in Item 6 “Selected Financial Data — Non-GAAP Financial Measures”) was $161.9 million in
2015, compared to $146.3 million in 2014. Our 2015 full-year Adjusted EBITDA results included a lower of cost or market
(“LCM”) inventory adjustment of $81.8 million; $24.3 million of losses related to liquidation of last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) inventory
layers; and $22.3 million of early settlements of select derivative instruments.
Our full year performance benefited from balanced contributions in our specialty products and fuel products segments, both
of which benefited from a marked, progressive decline in crude oil prices during the past year. Strength within the specialty and
fuel products segments was partially offset by weaker performances in our oilfield services segment and at Dakota Prairie Refining,
LLC (“Dakota Prairie”), our joint venture with MDU Resources Group, Inc. (“MDU”). Total refinery throughputs increased to a
record 123,051 bpd in 2015, versus 117,427 bpd in 2014, while total sales volumes increased to a record 126,216 bpd in 2015,
versus 122,852 bpd in 2014.
Our specialty products segment generated Adjusted EBITDA of $201.7 million in 2015, a decrease of 8.7% versus the prior
year period. Gross profit per barrel for our specialty products segment was $40.24 in 2015, versus $41.07 in the prior year.
During 2015, the decrease in the average selling price per barrel of specialty products lagged a significant decline in the
average cost of crude oil, our primary input cost, resulting in margin expansion within the specialty products segment. The average
price of New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil averaged approximately $49
per barrel in 2015 compared to $93 per barrel in 2014, with average selling prices per barrel of our specialty products declining
to a lesser degree. Total specialty products segment sales volumes increased to 25,205 bpd in 2015, an increase of 1.2% when
compared to 2014. Demand for lubricating oils, white oils and packaged and synthetic products all grew on a year over year basis,
with the packaged and synthetic group generating record total sales of $316.6 million in 2015, an increase of 1.0% from the prior
year.
Our fuel products segment generated Adjusted EBITDA of $81.9 million in 2015, an increase of 63.8% versus the prior year
period. Gross profit per barrel for our fuel products segment was $4.51 in 2015, versus $0.96 in the prior year. In 2015, production
within our fuel products segment reached a record high, as did our total annual fuel product sales volumes.
55
During 2015, a narrowing in crude oil price differentials served to partially offset strength in fuel products margins. On a
volumetric basis, we currently purchase more Western Canadian Select (“WCS”) than any other grade of crude oil. Between 2014
and 2015, the WCS discount versus WTI narrowed from $19 per barrel to $12 per barrel, which served to erode some of the cost
advantage realized by our northern fuels refineries in Wisconsin and Montana. We continue to believe a structurally wide WCS-
WTI differential remains a significant advantage to the overall profitability of our fuel products segment. In 2016, we intend to
increase the volumes of WCS-linked crude oil we process at our fuel products refineries to further capitalize on this advantage.
For benchmarking purposes, we compare our per barrel refined fuel products margin to the U.S. Gulf Coast 2/1/1 crack
spread (“Gulf Coast crack spread”). The Gulf Coast crack spread represents the approximate gross margin per barrel that results
from processing two barrels of crude oil into one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. The Gulf Coast
crack spread is calculated using the near-month futures price of NYMEX WTI crude oil, the price of U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline 87
Octane Conventional Gasoline and the price of U.S. Gulf Coast Pipeline Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (“ULSD”).
During 2015, the Gulf Coast crack spread averaged approximately $18 per barrel, versus approximately $17 per barrel in
2014. The market ULSD crack spread averaged approximately $17 per barrel during 2015, compared to approximately $21 per
barrel in the prior year. The market gasoline crack spread averaged approximately $19 per barrel during 2015, compared to
approximately $13 in the prior year.
Although the 2015 average Gulf Coast crack spread was above 2014 levels, the average Gulf Coast crack spread and the
average ULSD crack spread significantly decreased in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Gulf
Coast crack spread averaged approximately $11 per barrel, versus approximately $12 per barrel in the 2014 period. The market
ULSD crack spread averaged approximately $12 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2015, compared to approximately $19 per
barrel in the prior year period. The market gasoline crack spread averaged approximately $10 per barrel during the fourth quarter
of 2015, compared to approximately $4 per barrel in the prior year period. During 2016, the average Gulf Coast crack spread has
continued to decline to less than $10 per barrel, further impacting our fuel products refining margins.
We refer to our fuel products segment gross profit per barrel divided by the Gulf Coast crack spread as the “capture rate.”
The capture rate is a means of measuring refinery system gross profit per barrel against the benchmark crack spread. During 2015,
our capture rate was approximately 25%, versus approximately 6% in 2014.
Included within our fuel products segment gross profit per barrel calculation are the realized cost of crude oil and other
feedstocks and other production-related expenses, the most significant portion of which includes labor, plant fuel, utilities, contract
services, maintenance, depreciation and process materials. Our gross profit per barrel calculation may not be comparable to similar
calculations published by our competitors.
There are several factors that impact our refined product margin when compared to the benchmark crack spread. For example,
several of our fuel products refineries produce asphalt and other residual products that may carry an average sales price below that
of U.S. Gulf Coast gasoline or U.S. Gulf Coast ULSD. Alternatively, many of our fuel products refineries purchase select quantities
of crude oil at a discount to NYMEX WTI, which helps support a higher capture rate, relative to the crack spread benchmark.
Finally, some of our facilities, such as our Shreveport and San Antonio refineries, produce both fuel and specialty products; given
that our specialty products facilities generally operate at lower utilization rates than our fuel products facilities, facilities producing
specialty products may incur higher operating expenses when compared to refineries that produce fuels exclusively, such as our
Montana and Superior refineries. Based on our system wide crude purchasing behaviors and overall production slate, we believe
the Gulf Coast crack spread remains a meaningful indicator in tracking directional shifts in our refined product margins.
Our oilfield services segment generated Adjusted EBITDA of $(25.9) million in 2015, a decrease of 173.8% versus the prior
year period. The continued decline in crude oil prices that occurred during 2015 led to a significant reduction in crude oil exploration
and production activity, contributing to a nearly 50% year over year decline in the domestic land-based rig count. The subsequent
decline in drilling and completion activity had an adverse impact on our oilfield services segment throughout the year. In response
to these market conditions, we took steps to significantly reduce costs in the oilfield services segment during 2015, including
targeted workforce reductions to help right-size the segment relative to the needs of our customers. While the oilfield services
segment remains challenged in a lower commodity price environment, we continue to manage expenses within the segment.
For a reconciliation of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow to net income (loss) and net cash provided
by operating activities, our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity measures calculated and presented in
accordance with GAAP, please read Item 6 “Selected Financial Data — Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”
Quarterly Cash Distribution
We aim to provide our unitholders a stable-to-growing quarterly cash distribution, consistent with our expectations for long-
term growth in Adjusted EBITDA and DCF.
On January 19, 2016, we declared a regular quarterly cash distribution of $0.685 per unit, or $2.74 per unit on an annualized
basis, for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, on all of our outstanding limited partner units. This distribution level is consistent
56
with the amount paid to unitholders in the previous quarter. The distribution was paid on February 12, 2016, to unitholders of
record as of the close of business on February 2, 2016. For the full year 2015, we paid total cash distributions of $224.6 million,
versus $210.2 million in 2014.
However, in light of the current volatility in market conditions and based on a desire to maintain the appropriate level of
liquidity, we continue to evaluate whether it is appropriate to maintain our current distribution level. Our board of directors will
review the distribution rate quarterly, and there can be no assurance that the current distribution level will be maintained. The
actual distributions we will declare will be subject to our operating performance, prevailing market conditions (including crack
spreads), the impact of unforeseen events and the approval of our board of directors and the actual distributions will be pursuant
to our distribution policy described in Item 5 “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities — Cash Distribution Policy.”
2016 Capital Spending Forecast
We currently anticipate total capital expenditures to range between $125.0 million and $150.0 million in 2016. This decrease
in anticipated capital expenditures is due mainly to the conclusion of a multi-year organic growth project campaign in late 2015.
Liquidity Update
On December 31, 2015, we had availability under our revolving credit facility of approximately $233.5 million, based on a
$411.3 million borrowing base, $66.8 million in outstanding standby letters of credit and $111.0 million in outstanding borrowings.
In addition, we had $5.6 million of cash on hand as of December 31, 2015. We believe we will continue to have sufficient liquidity
from cash on hand, cash flow from operations, borrowing capacity and other means by which to meet our financial commitments,
debt service obligations, contingencies and anticipated capital expenditures. On a continuous basis, we focus on various initiatives,
including working capital initiatives, to further enhance our liquidity over time, given current market conditions.
Renewable Fuel Standard Update
We, along with the broader refining industry, remain subject to compliance costs under the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”).
Under the regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the RFS provides annual requirements for the total volume
of renewable transportation fuels which are mandated to be blended into finished petroleum fuels. If a refiner does not meet its
required annual Renewable Volume Obligation (“RVO”), the refiner can purchase blending credits in the open market, referred
to as Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”).
For the year ended December 31, 2015, our total cost to purchase RINs was $38.8 million, versus $9.4 million in 2014. Our
gross RINs obligation, which includes RINs that are required to be secured through either blending or through the purchase of
RINs in the open market, was 99 million RINs in 2015. For the full-year 2016, we anticipate our gross RINs obligation will increase
to 120 million RINs, given recent production capacity expansions at two of our fuel products refineries.
We continue to anticipate that expenses related to RFS compliance have the potential to remain a significant expense for our
fuel products segment, assuming current market prices for RINs. Estimated RINs obligations remain subject to fluctuations in
fuels production volumes during the full-year 2016.
Organic Growth Projects Update
In early 2016, we concluded a series of organic growth projects requiring a total capital investment of more than $600 million
during the past three years. We anticipate these projects will provide significant incremental Adjusted EBITDA over time. During
the past twelve months, four major organic projects have commenced operations, including the 20,000 bpd Dakota Prairie refinery
in North Dakota; a capacity expansion of our Great Falls, Montana, refinery that increased production capacity from 10,000 bpd
to 25,000 bpd; a capacity expansion at our Louisiana, Missouri, esters plant that effectively doubles esters production at that facility
and a project at our San Antonio, Texas, refinery that converted a portion of our diesel fuel production into higher-margin solvents.
CEO Succession
On September 14, 2015, our general partner’s Board of Directors named energy industry veteran Timothy Go as incoming
chief executive officer (“CEO”), effective January 1, 2016. Mr. Go, 49, joins us with more than 25 years of experience serving in
executive-level roles at leading companies operating in the petroleum refining and specialty products markets. As CEO, Mr. Go
will lead and execute our long-term strategy to become the premier global producer and distributor of specialty petroleum products.
Mr. Go joins us from Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (“Flint Hills Resources”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries,
Inc., where he most recently served as vice president - operations. Previously, Mr. Go spent nearly 20 years in various senior level
operations and management roles at ExxonMobil Corporation. As a trained chemical engineer, Mr. Go brings a deep base of
technical and operational knowledge to Calumet. In recent years, Mr. Go led the integration of Flint Hills Resources’ $2 billion
acquisition of PetroLogistics’ propane dehydrogenation plant; managed the operations of multiple specialty chemical plants; and
established centers of operational excellence for Flint Hills Resources. Earlier in his career, Mr. Go managed ExxonMobil’s 187,000
57
barrels-per-day Strathcona refinery in Edmonton, Canada, while also serving in a variety of operations, crude logistics and strategic
planning roles for ExxonMobil in the Gulf Coast and around the world.
Strategic Update
In early 2016, we introduced a revised vision designed to position our organization as the premier specialty petroleum products
company in the world. As part of this vision, we have commenced a multi-year initiative that emphasizes a combination of
operational excellence, opportunistic investments in “self-help,” high-return internal projects and a targeted acquisition strategy
that seeks to support the purchase of complementary, competitively advantaged assets in the global specialty products markets.
Operational Excellence. We will seek to optimize our existing asset base through a series of improvement initiatives that are
expected to position us for sustained, profitable growth. We have identified key areas of opportunity within the business that carry
“low/no” capital investment requirements and attractive return profiles. Key initiatives under evaluation as part of the operational
excellence initiative include efforts to further optimize the procurement of feedstock, efforts to improve refinery yields, efforts to
improve the efficiency of assets by operating at higher utilization rates and efforts to upgrade lower margin product streams into
higher margin finished products.
“Self-Help” Project Investments. We expect to pursue a series of “self-help” projects characterized by high-return investment
profiles and sub-$50 million capital investment requirements. We will evaluate projects that are smaller in size and scope than the
prior organic growth campaign and that carry shorter durations to completion. These projects are expected to carry high-return
investment profiles capable of supporting growth in Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow.
Targeted Asset Strategy. We seek to acquire complementary, immediately accretive businesses with sustainable competitive
advantages that further entrench us as a global leader in the specialty products markets. Our acquisition focus will include specialty
businesses (1) where we have an existing core competency; and (2) that have a sustainable competitive advantage. At the same
time, we regularly evaluate our portfolio to identify potential asset divestiture candidates that may not fit our core asset portfolio
criteria.
Acquisitions
Acquisition
Acquisition Date
Description
Aggregate
Purchase Price
(1)
Specialty Oilfield Solutions, Ltd. assets
(“SOS Acquisition”)
August 1, 2014
ADF Holdings, Inc. (“Anchor
Acquisition”)
March 31, 2014
A full-service drilling fluids and solids control
company with primary operations in the Eagle
Ford, Marcellus and Utica shale formations.
An independent provider and marketer of drilling
fluids and completion fluids to the oil and gas
exploration industry.
United Petroleum, LLC assets (“United
Petroleum Acquisition”)
February 28, 2014
A marketer and distributor of high performance
lubricants.
Bel-Ray Company, LLC (“Bel-Ray
Acquisition”)
December 10, 2013
A manufacturer and global distributor of high-
performance lubricants and greases.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. logistics assets
(“Crude Oil Logistics Acquisition”)
August 9, 2013
Crude oil loading facilities and related assets in
North Dakota.
NuStar Energy L.P.’s San Antonio,
Texas refinery (“San Antonio
Acquisition”)
January 2, 2013
A refinery in San Antonio, Texas with total crude
oil throughput capacity of 21,000 bpd and
produces jet fuel, diesel, gasoline and other fuel
products and solvents.
$
$
$
$
$
$
29.6
223.6
10.4
(2)
53.6
6.2
117.9
(1) Aggregate purchase price is net of cash acquired and includes working capital.
(2) Aggregate purchase price is net of cash acquired and excludes debt assumed.
Key Performance Measures
Our sales and net income are principally affected by the price of crude oil, demand for specialty products, fuel products and
oilfield products and services, prevailing crack spreads for fuel products, the price of natural gas used as fuel in our operations
and our results from derivative instrument activities.
Our primary raw materials are crude oil and other specialty feedstocks, and our primary outputs are specialty petroleum
products, fuel products and oilfield services products. The prices of crude oil, specialty products, fuel products and oilfield products
and services 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 derivative instruments designed to help mitigate the impact of
commodity price fluctuations on our business. The primary purpose of our commodity risk management activities is to economically
58
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 that do not exceed our projected purchases of crude oil and natural gas and sales of fuel products. Please refer to Part
II, Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk — Commodity Price Risk” for detailed information
regarding our derivative instruments and our commodity price risk.
As of December 31, 2015, we have hedged refining margins, or crack spreads, on approximately 0.9 million barrels of fuel
products through the first quarter of 2016 at an average refining margin of $8.98 per barrel. Please refer to Note 8 “Derivatives”
under Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data — Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” and Part II,
Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk — Commodity Price Risk” for detailed information
regarding our derivative instruments and our commodity price risk.
Our management uses several financial and operational measurements to analyze our performance. These measurements
include the following:
•
•
•
•
sales volumes;
production yields;
specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segment gross profit; and
specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segment Adjusted EBITDA.
Sales volumes. We view the volumes of specialty products and fuel products sold as an important measure of our ability to
effectively utilize our operating 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 facilities. 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. In order to maximize our gross profit and minimize lower margin by-products, we seek the optimal product
mix for each barrel of crude oil we refine, or feedstocks we, or third parties, process, which we refer to as production yield.
Specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segment gross profit. Specialty products, fuel products and oilfield
services gross profit are important measures of our ability to maximize the profitability of our specialty products, fuel products
and oilfield services segments. We define gross profit as sales less the cost of crude oil and other feedstocks and other production-
related and service-related expenses, the most significant portion of which includes labor, plant fuel, utilities, contract services,
maintenance, depreciation and processing materials. We use 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 or decrease in selling prices typically
lags behind the rising or falling costs, respectively, of crude oil feedstocks for specialty products. Other than plant fuel, production-
related expenses generally remain stable across broad ranges of specialty products and fuel products throughput volumes, but can
fluctuate depending on maintenance activities performed during a specific period.
Our fuel products segment gross profit per barrel may differ from standard U.S. Gulf Coast, Group 3, PADD 4 Billings,
Montana or 3/2/1 and 2/1/1 market crack spreads due to many factors, including derivative activities to hedge both our fuel products
segment sales and the cost of crude oil reflected in gross profit, our fuel products mix as shown in our production table being
different than the ratios used to calculate such market crack spreads, LCM inventory adjustments reflected in gross profit, operating
costs including fixed costs, actual crude oil costs differing from market indices and our local market pricing differentials for fuel
products in the Shreveport, Louisiana, San Antonio, Texas, Superior, Wisconsin and Great Falls, Montana vicinities as compared
to U.S. Gulf Coast, Group 3 and PADD 4 Billings, Montana postings.
Specialty products, fuel products and oilfield services segment Adjusted EBITDA. We believe that specialty products, fuel
products and oilfield services segment Adjusted EBITDA measures are useful as they exclude transactions not related to our core
cash operating activities and provide metrics to analyze our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders as Adjusted EBITDA is
a component in the calculation of Distributable Cash Flow and allows us to meaningfully analyze the trends and performance of
our core cash operations as well as make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to segments.
In addition to the foregoing measures, we also monitor our selling and general and administrative expenses.
59
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth information about our combined operations, excluding the results of operations of our oilfield
services segment. Facility production volume differs from sales volume due to changes in inventories and the sale of purchased
fuel product blendstocks, such as ethanol and biodiesel, and the resale of crude oil in our fuel products segment. The table includes
the results of operations at our San Antonio refinery commencing January 2, 2013, Bel-Ray facility commencing December 10,
2013 and United Petroleum assets commencing February 28, 2014:
Total sales volume (1)
Total feedstock runs (2)
Facility production: (3)
Specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products (4)
Other
Total specialty products
Fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other
Total fuel products
Total facility production (3)
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
(In bpd)
126,216
123,051
122,852
117,427
2013
116,477
110,237
13,325
7,942
1,460
1,584
1,355
25,666
37,691
30,204
5,157
24,077
97,129
122,795
11,836
8,934
1,510
1,754
1,829
25,863
34,221
27,074
4,799
22,189
88,283
114,146
13,247
8,759
1,443
1,481
2,192
27,122
29,374
26,015
4,105
19,976
79,470
106,592
(1) Total sales volume includes sales from the production at our facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements, sales of inventories and the resale of crude oil to third party customers. Total sales volume
includes the sale of purchased fuel product blendstocks, such as ethanol and biodiesel, as components of finished fuel products
in our fuel products segment sales.
The increase in total sales volume in 2015 compared to 2014 is due primarily to increased production at the Shreveport
refinery due to increased reliability and extended turnaround activity in 2014 and increased production at the San Antonio
refinery as a result of the crude oil unit expansion completed in December 2013 being fully operational, partially offset by
decreased sales of solvents and crude oil sales to third parties as a result of market conditions.
The increase in total sales volume in 2014 compared to 2013 is due primarily to increased production at the Montana and
Superior refineries as a result of turnaround activity in 2013, increased production at the San Antonio refinery as a result of
the crude oil unit expansion completed in December 2013 and incremental sales volume from the Bel-Ray Acquisition,
partially offset by decreased production at the Shreveport refinery as a result of extended turnaround activity in 2014.
(2) Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
The increase in total feedstock runs in 2015 compared to 2014 is due primarily to increased feedstock runs at the Shreveport
refinery due to increased reliability and extended turnaround activity in 2014 and increased feedstock runs at the San Antonio
refinery as a result of the crude oil unit expansion completed in December 2013 being fully operational, partially offset by
decreased feedstock runs of solvents as a result of market conditions.
The increase in total feedstock runs in 2014 compared to 2013 is due primarily to increased feedstock runs at the Superior
refinery in 2014 as a result of turnaround activity in 2013, increased feedstock runs at the Montana refinery in 2014 as a
result of turnaround activity in 2013, incremental feedstock runs as a result of the Bel-Ray Acquisition and incremental
feedstock runs in 2014 as a result of the San Antonio crude oil unit expansion completed in December 2013, partially offset
by decreased feedstock runs at the Shreveport refinery as a result of extended turnaround activity in 2014.
60
(3) Total facility production represents the barrels per day of specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing crude
oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and at certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements.
The difference between total facility production and total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the
input of feedstocks and the production of finished products and volume loss.
The increases in total facility production in 2015 over 2014 and 2014 over 2013 are due primarily to the operational items
discussed above in footnote 2 of this table.
(4) Represents production of packaged and synthetic specialty products, including the products from the Royal Purple, Bel-Ray,
Calumet Packaging and Missouri facilities.
The following table reflects our consolidated results of operations and includes the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow. For a reconciliation of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow
to net income (loss) and net cash provided by operating activities, our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity
measures calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP, please read Item 6 “Selected Financial Data — Non-GAAP Financial
Measures.”
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In millions)
2013
Sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Operating costs and expenses:
Selling
General and administrative
Transportation
Taxes other than income taxes
Asset impairment
Other
Operating income
Other income (expense):
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Other
Total other expense
Net income (loss) before income taxes
Income tax expense (benefit)
Net income (loss)
EBITDA
Adjusted EBITDA
Distributable Cash Flow
5,421.4
5,011.4
410.0
62.6
82.1
142.7
14.2
10.5
6.3
91.6
(96.8)
(14.6)
(4.7)
25.7
(0.3)
3.0
(87.7)
3.9
0.4
3.5
233.1
241.5
18.8
$
4,212.8
$
5,791.1
$
3,618.2
594.6
146.0
135.5
175.5
17.7
33.8
11.1
75.0
(104.9)
(46.6)
8.1
(39.5)
(61.5)
1.6
(242.8)
(167.8)
(28.4)
(139.4) $
$
129.1
$
257.7
$
161.9
5,261.4
529.7
149.6
98.3
171.4
13.4
36.0
14.2
46.8
(110.8)
(89.9)
43.8
(0.6)
(3.4)
1.1
(159.8)
(113.0)
(0.8)
(112.2) $
$
226.3
$
305.9
$
146.3
$
$
$
$
61
Year Ended December 31, 2015 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2014
Sales. Sales decreased $1,578.3 million, or 27.3%, to $4,212.8 million in 2015 from $5,791.1 million in 2014. The results of
operations related to the United Petroleum Acquisition has been included in the specialty products segment since its date of
acquisition, February 28, 2014. The results of operations related to the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions have been included in the
oilfield services segment since their dates of acquisition, March 31, 2014, and August 1, 2014, respectively. Sales for each of our
principal product categories in these periods were as follows:
Sales by segment:
Specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products (1)
Other (2)
Total specialty products
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
Average specialty products sales price per barrel
Fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other (3)
Hedging activities gain (loss)
Total fuel products
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
Average fuel products sales price per barrel (excluding hedging
activities)
Average fuel products sales price per barrel (including hedging
activities)
Total oilfield services
Total sales
Total specialty and fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
% Change
(In millions, except barrel and per barrel data)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
575.6
$
302.0
136.9
316.6
36.7
1,367.8
9,200,000
148.67
$
$
1,002.4
$
773.2
136.5
471.0
179.4
2,562.5
36,869,000
64.64
69.50
282.5
4,212.8
46,069,000
$
$
$
$
$
748.4
485.2
144.1
313.5
38.0
1,729.2
9,087,000
190.29
1,444.5
1,205.3
199.0
853.6
(9.0)
3,693.4
35,754,000
103.55
103.30
(23.1)%
(37.8)%
(5.0)%
1.0 %
(3.4)%
(20.9)%
1.2 %
(21.9)%
(30.6)%
(35.8)%
(31.4)%
(44.8)%
2,093.3 %
(30.6)%
3.1 %
(37.6)%
(32.7)%
368.5
(23.3)%
5,791.1
44,841,000
(27.3)%
2.7 %
(1) Represents packaged and synthetic specialty products at the Royal Purple, Bel-Ray, Calumet Packaging and Missouri facilities.
(2) Represents by-products, including fuels and asphalt, produced in connection with the production of specialty products at the
Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries and Dickinson and Karns City facilities.
(3) Represents asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other products produced in connection with the production of fuels at the Shreveport,
Superior, San Antonio and Montana refineries and crude oil sales from the Superior and San Antonio refineries to third party
customers.
62
The components of the $361.4 million specialty products segment sales decrease in 2015 were as follows:
Sales price
Volume
Acquisition
Total specialty products segment sales decrease
Dollar Change
(In millions)
(385.4)
19.8
4.2
(361.4)
$
$
Specialty products segment sales for 2015 decreased $361.4 million, or 20.9%, primarily due to a decrease in the average
selling price per barrel, partially offset by higher sales volume and $4.2 million of incremental sales from the United Petroleum
Acquisition. Legacy operations’ sales decreased $385.4 million compared to 2014 due to a 22.0% decrease in the average selling
price per barrel primarily as a result of decreased lubricating oils, solvents and packaged and synthetic specialty products average
selling prices due to market conditions, while the average cost of crude oil per barrel decreased 46.2%. The increase in sales volume
is due primarily to higher sales volume of lubricating oils at the Shreveport refinery due to increased production reliability in 2015
and extended turnaround activity in 2014 and increased sales volume of packaged and synthetic specialty products, partially offset
by decreased sales volume of solvents due to market conditions.
The components of the $1,130.9 million fuel products segment sales decrease in 2015 were as follows:
Sales price
Hedging activities
Volume
Total fuel products segment sales decrease
Dollar Change
(In millions)
(1,440.9)
188.4
121.6
(1,130.9)
$
$
Fuel products segment sales for 2015 decreased $1,130.9 million, or 30.6%, due primarily to a decrease in the average selling
price per barrel, partially offset by a $188.4 million decrease in realized derivative losses recorded in sales on our fuel products
cash flow hedges and increased sales volume. The average selling price per barrel (excluding the impact of hedging activities
reflected in sales) decreased $38.91, or 37.6%, resulting in a $1,440.9 million decrease in sales, compared to a 47.0% decrease in
the average price of crude oil per barrel. The decrease in the average selling price per barrel is primarily due to market conditions.
Sales volume increased 3.1% primarily due to increased production reliability in 2015 and extended turnaround activity in 2014
at the Shreveport refinery and increased production at the San Antonio refinery as a result of the crude oil unit expansion completed
in December 2013 being fully operational, partially offset by decreased crude oil sales to third parties.
Oilfield services segment sales for 2015 decreased $86.0 million, or 23.3%, primarily due to decreased sales volume driven
by a decline in rig count, partially offset by $93.4 million of incremental sales from the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions completed
in 2014. Our rig count decreased 46.5% as a result of a 47.8% decrease in the U.S. land-based rig count. Currently, we sell to
approximately 10% of the U.S. land-based rigs. Volatility in crude oil and natural gas prices impacted our customers’ drilling and
production activities during 2015, which resulted in an unfavorable impact on sales in 2015.
63
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased $64.9 million, or 12.3%, to $594.6 million in 2015 from $529.7 million in 2014. Gross
profit for our specialty, fuel products and oilfield services segments was as follows:
Gross profit by segment:
Specialty products:
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Specialty products gross profit per barrel
Fuel products:
Gross profit excluding hedging activities
Hedging activities
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Fuel products gross profit (loss) per barrel
(excluding hedging activities)
Fuel products gross profit per barrel (including
hedging activities)
Oilfield services:
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Total gross profit
Percentage of sales
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
(Dollars in millions, except per barrel data)
% Change
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
370.2
27.1%
40.24
157.1
9.1
166.2
6.5%
4.26
4.51
58.2
20.6%
594.6
14.1%
373.2
21.6%
41.07
(0.7)
35.2
34.5
0.9%
(0.02)
0.96
122.0
33.1%
529.7
9.1%
(0.8)%
(2.0)%
22,542.9 %
(74.1)%
381.7 %
21,400.0 %
369.8 %
(52.3)%
12.3 %
The components of the $3.0 million decrease in the specialty products segment gross profit for 2015 were as follows:
2014 reported gross profit
Cost of materials
Volume
Acquisition
Sales price
LCM inventory adjustment
LIFO inventory layer adjustment
2015 reported gross profit
Dollar Change
(In millions)
373.2
415.6
6.5
1.0
(385.4)
(34.9)
(5.8)
370.2
$
$
The decrease in specialty products segment gross profit of $3.0 million year over year was due primarily to a decrease in the
average selling price per barrel and a $34.9 million increase in the unfavorable LCM inventory adjustment primarily as a result
of the lower crude oil prices, partially offset by decreased cost of materials and increased sales volume. Sales price and cost of
materials, net, from our legacy operations increased gross profit by $30.2 million, as the average selling price per barrel decreased
22.0%, while the average cost of crude oil per barrel decreased 46.2%. Gross profit was also negatively impacted by increased
losses of $5.8 million related to the liquidation of LIFO inventory layers.
64
The components of the $131.7 million increase in the fuel products segment gross profit for 2015 were as follows:
2014 reported gross profit
Cost of materials
LCM inventory adjustment
LIFO inventory layer adjustment
Volume
Operating costs
Sales price
RINs, net
Hedging activities
2015 reported gross profit
Dollar Change
(In millions)
34.5
1,561.2
42.0
12.5
10.8
1.6
(1,440.9)
(29.4)
(26.1)
166.2
$
$
The increase in fuel products segment gross profit of $131.7 million year over year was due primarily to widening gasoline
crack spreads and asphalt margins, a $42.0 million decrease in the unfavorable LCM inventory adjustment and decreased losses
of $12.5 million related to the liquidation of LIFO inventory layers, partially offset by a $29.4 million unfavorable RINs adjustment
and a $26.1 million decrease in realized gains on derivatives. During 2015, crack spreads widened as the average cost of crude oil
per barrel decreased 47.0% and the average selling price per barrel decreased by 37.6%. The $29.4 million unfavorable RINs
adjustment primarily resulted from increased RINs market pricing.
The decrease in oilfield services segment gross profit of $63.8 million year over year was due primarily to decreased sales
volume driven by a decline in rig count and a $14.8 million unfavorable LCM adjustment, partially offset by $26.9 million of
incremental gross profit from the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions completed in 2014. Volatility in crude oil and natural gas prices
impacted our customers’ drilling and production activities, which had an unfavorable impact on our gross profit in 2015. The
continued decrease in crude oil prices created tighter market conditions in the basins in which we operate.
Selling. Selling expenses decreased $3.6 million, or 2.4%, to $146.0 million in 2015 from $149.6 million in 2014. The
decrease was due primarily to a $5.6 million decrease in advertising expense and a $2.0 million decrease in travel and entertainment
expense, partially offset by incremental selling expenses related to the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions and a $0.8 million increase
in bad debt expense.
General and administrative. General and administrative expenses increased $37.2 million, or 37.8%, to $135.5 million in
2015 from $98.3 million in 2014. The increase was due primarily to incremental general and administrative expenses related to
the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions, a $12.2 million increase in incentive compensation costs, an $8.5 million increase in professional
fees expense, a $4.6 million legal settlement and a $2.9 million increase in severance expenses.
Transportation. Transportation expenses increased $4.1 million, or 2.4%, to $175.5 million in 2015 from $171.4 million in
2014. This increase is due primarily to increased sales of lubricating oils and packaged and synthetic specialty products and
incremental transportation expenses related to the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions, partially offset by decreased crude oil sales to
third parties and decreased freight rates.
Asset impairment. During 2015, we recorded an impairment charge of $33.8 million related to the oilfield services segment
compared to an impairment charge of $36.0 million in 2014. The impairment charges were driven primarily by our reduced outlook
on revenues and profitability as a result of the continued decline of crude oil prices.
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased $5.9 million, or 5.3%, to $104.9 million in 2015 from $110.8 million in 2014.
The decrease is due primarily to increased capitalized interest and lower interest rates on outstanding senior notes, partially offset
by increased outstanding long-term debt.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment costs decreased $43.3 million, or 48.2%, to $46.6 million in 2015, due
primarily to the redemption of the 2020 Notes with a portion of the net proceeds from the issuance of the 2023 Notes in 2015
compared to the redemption of the remaining 9.375% senior notes due 2019 (“2019 Notes”) with a portion of the net proceeds
from the issuance of the 2021 Notes in 2014.
65
Derivative activity. The following table details the impact of our derivative instruments on the consolidated statements of
operations for 2015 and 2014:
Derivative gain (loss) reflected in sales
Derivative gain (loss) reflected in cost of sales
Derivative gain reflected in gross profit
Realized gain on derivative instruments
Unrealized loss on derivative instruments
Derivative gain reflected in interest expense
Total derivative gain (loss) reflected in the consolidated statements of operations
Total gain on commodity derivative settlements
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In millions)
179.4
(167.3)
12.1
$
$
$
8.1
(39.5)
0.5
(18.8) $
$
10.2
(9.0)
46.0
37.0
43.8
(0.6)
3.3
83.5
87.5
$
$
$
$
$
Realized gain on derivative instruments. Realized gain on derivative instruments decreased $35.7 million to $8.1 million in
2015 from $43.8 million in 2014. The change was due primarily to decreased realized gains of approximately $12.9 million related
to settlements of derivative instruments used to economically hedge crack spreads and crude oil that are not classified as hedges
for accounting purposes, decreased realized gains of approximately $11.8 million on natural gas swaps used to economically hedge
natural gas purchases and decreased gain ineffectiveness of approximately $10.9 million, partially offset by a $1.7 million gain
associated with premiums received for crude oil option contracts in the 2015 period.
Unrealized loss on derivative instruments. Unrealized loss on derivative instruments increased $38.9 million to $39.5 million
in 2015 from $0.6 million in 2014. This change was due primarily to decreased unrealized gains of approximately $52.3 million
related to derivative instruments used to economically hedge crack spreads, crude oil and natural gas that are not accounted for as
hedges for accounting purposes, partially offset by ineffectiveness of approximately $13.4 million in 2014 with no comparable
activity in the current period.
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates. Loss from unconsolidated affiliates increased $58.1 million to $61.5 million in 2015
from $3.4 million in 2014, due primarily to unfavorable operating results of Dakota Prairie, which commenced sales to third parties
in May 2015 and a $24.3 million other-than-temporary impairment charge related to Juniper (defined below).
Income tax benefit. Income tax benefit increased $27.6 million to $28.4 million in 2015 from $0.8 million in 2014. The
change was due primarily to weaker performance in our oilfield services segment, including a $33.8 million goodwill impairment
charge and a $14.8 million LCM inventory adjustment, which increased the proportion of losses subject to federal, state and local
income taxes and the conversion of ADF Holdings, Inc. to ADF Holdings, LLC and Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. to Anchor
Drilling Fluids USA, LLC, which resulted in the writeoff of deferred taxes.
66
Year Ended December 31, 2014 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2013
Sales. Sales increased $369.7 million, or 6.8%, to $5,791.1 million in 2014 from $5,421.4 million in 2013. The results of operations
related to the San Antonio and Crude Oil Logistics Acquisitions have been included in the fuel products segment since their dates
of acquisition, January 2, 2013, and August 9, 2013, respectively. The results of operations related to the Bel-Ray and United
Petroleum Acquisitions have been included in the specialty products segment since their dates of acquisition, December 10, 2013,
and February 28, 2014, respectively. The results of operations related to the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions have been included in
the oilfield services segment since their dates of acquisition, March 31, 2014, and August 1, 2014, respectively. Sales for each of
our principal product categories in these periods were as follows:
Sales by segment:
Specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products (1)
Other (2)
Total specialty products
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
Average specialty products sales price per barrel
Fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other (3)
Hedging activities loss
Total fuel products
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
Average fuel products sales price per barrel (excluding hedging
activities)
Average fuel products sales price per barrel (including hedging
activities)
Total oilfield services
Total sales
Total specialty and fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
% Change
(In millions, except barrel and per barrel data)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
748.4
485.2
144.1
313.5
38.0
1,729.2
9,087,000
190.29
$
$
$
1,444.5
$
1,205.3
199.0
853.6
(9.0)
3,693.4
35,754,000
103.55
103.30
368.5
5,791.1
44,841,000
$
$
$
$
$
848.8
511.7
141.0
233.6
39.8
1,774.9
9,630,000
184.31
1,409.8
1,263.2
190.1
786.5
(3.1)
3,646.5
32,884,000
110.98
110.89
(11.8)%
(5.2)%
2.2 %
34.2 %
(4.5)%
(2.6)%
(5.6)%
3.2 %
2.5 %
(4.6)%
4.7 %
8.5 %
190.3 %
1.3 %
8.7 %
(6.7)%
(6.8)%
—
—
5,421.4
42,514,000
6.8 %
5.5 %
(1) Represents production of packaged and synthetic specialty products at the Royal Purple, Bel-Ray, Calumet Packaging and
Missouri facilities.
(2) Represents by-products, including fuels and asphalt, produced in connection with the production of specialty products at the
Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries and Dickinson and Karns City facilities.
(3) Represents asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other products produced in connection with the production of fuels at the Shreveport,
Superior, San Antonio and Montana refineries and purchased crude oil sales from the Superior and San Antonio refineries
to third party customers.
67
The components of the $45.7 million specialty products segment sales decrease in 2014 were as follows:
Acquisitions
Sales price
Volume
Total specialty products segment sales decrease
Dollar Change
(In millions)
58.1
17.8
(121.6)
(45.7)
$
$
Specialty products segment sales for 2014 decreased $45.7 million, or 2.6%, primarily as a result of lower sales volume,
partially offset by $58.1 million incremental sales from the Bel-Ray and United Petroleum Acquisitions and an increase in the
average selling price per barrel. Legacy operations’ sales increased $17.8 million compared to 2013 due to a 1.1% increase in the
average selling price per barrel primarily as a result of higher lubricating oil sales prices and improved product mix. Legacy
operations’ sales volumes decreased 6.8% as compared to 2013, which resulted in a $121.6 million decrease in sales. The decrease
in sales volume is due primarily to lower sales volumes of lubricating oils and solvents due to market conditions, partially offset
by increased sales volumes of packaged and synthetic specialty products.
The components of the $46.9 million fuel products segment sales increase in 2014 were as follows:
Volume
Hedging activities
Sales price
Total fuel products segment sales increase
Dollar Change
(In millions)
$
$
318.5
(5.9)
(265.7)
46.9
Fuel products segment sales for 2014 increased $46.9 million, or 1.3%, due primarily to increased volume, partially offset
by a decrease in the average selling price per barrel and a $5.9 million increase in realized derivative losses recorded in sales on
our fuel products cash flow hedges. Sales volumes increased 8.7% primarily due to increased sales volume of gasoline, jet fuel
and asphalt primarily as a result of increased production at the Superior and Montana refineries due to turnaround activity in 2013
and increased production at the San Antonio refinery as a result of the crude oil unit expansion completed in December 2013,
partially offset by extended turnaround activity in 2014 at the Shreveport refinery. The average selling price per barrel (excluding
the impact of hedging activities reflected in sales) decreased $7.43, or 6.7%, resulting in a $265.7 million decrease in sales,
compared to a 6.3% decrease in the average price of crude oil per barrel. The average selling price per barrel decreased across all
fuel products categories as a result of lower crude oil prices.
Oilfield services segment sales for 2014 increased $368.5 million as a result of the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions in 2014.
Volatility in crude oil and natural gas prices impacted our customers’ drilling and production activities, which resulted in an
unfavorable impact to our sales late in 2014. The U.S. onshore rig count decreased 6% from the third quarter of 2014 to the fourth
quarter of 2014. As of December 31, 2014, we sold to approximately 10% of the U.S. land-based rigs.
68
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased $119.7 million, or 29.2%, to $529.7 million in 2014 from $410.0 million in 2013. Gross
profit for our specialty, fuel products and oilfield services segments was as follows:
2014
Year Ended December 31,
2013
% Change
(Dollars in millions, except per barrel data)
Gross profit by segment:
Specialty products:
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Specialty products gross profit per barrel
Fuel products:
Gross profit excluding hedging activities
Hedging activities
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Fuel products gross profit (loss) per barrel
(excluding hedging activities)
Fuel products gross profit per barrel (including
hedging activities)
Oilfield services:
Gross profit
Percentage of sales
Total gross profit
Percentage of sales
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
373.2
21.6%
41.07
(0.7)
35.2
34.5
0.9%
(0.02)
0.96
122.0
33.1%
529.7
9.1%
322.3
18.2%
33.47
87.7
—
87.7
2.4%
2.67
2.67
—
—
410.0
7.6%
15.8 %
22.7 %
(100.8)%
100.0 %
(60.7)%
(100.7)%
(64.0)%
—
29.2 %
The components of the $50.9 million specialty products segment gross profit increase in 2014 were as follows:
2013 reported gross profit
Cost of materials
Sales price
Acquisitions
Operating costs
LCM inventory adjustment
LIFO inventory layer liquidation
Volume
2014 reported gross profit
Dollar Change
(In millions)
322.3
60.0
17.8
18.1
(3.0)
(1.1)
(6.3)
(34.6)
373.2
$
$
The increase in specialty products segment gross profit of $50.9 million year over year was due primarily to the decreased
cost of feedstocks, higher sales price per barrel and incremental gross profit of $18.1 million generated from the Bel-Ray and
United Petroleum Acquisitions, partially offset by decreased sales volume. Sales price and cost of materials, net, from our legacy
operations increased gross profit by $77.8 million. The cost of materials decrease was primarily a result of the 7.8% decrease in
the average cost of crude oil per barrel and decreased cost of base oil feedstocks per barrel. Gross profit was negatively impacted
by a $1.1 million LCM inventory adjustment and decreased gains of $6.3 million related to the liquidation of LIFO inventory
layers.
69
The components of the $53.2 million fuel products segment gross profit decrease in 2014 were as follows:
2013 reported gross profit
Sales price
LCM inventory adjustment
Operating costs
LIFO inventory layer liquidation
Cost of materials
Volume
Hedging activities
RINs, net
2014 reported gross profit
Dollar Change
(In millions)
87.7
(265.8)
(75.0)
(31.5)
(29.8)
257.9
35.6
35.2
20.2
34.5
$
$
The decrease in fuel products segment gross profit of $53.2 million year over year was due primarily to narrowing crack
spreads and increased operating costs, partially offset by increased realized gains on derivatives of $35.2 million. Sales price and
cost of materials, net, decreased gross profit by $7.9 million, as the average selling price per barrel decreased 6.7%, while the
average cost of crude oil per barrel decreased 6.3%. Gross profit was negatively impacted by a $75.0 million LCM inventory
adjustment and increased losses of $29.8 million related to the liquidation of LIFO inventory layers. Operating costs increased
$31.5 million primarily as a result of higher repairs and maintenance, depreciation and natural gas costs, partially offset by an
$18.2 million gain on RINs from the sale of approximately 31 million RINs as a result of receiving approval from the EPA of a
one-year extension of the small refinery exemption from the requirements of the RFS for our Shreveport and San Antonio refineries
for the 2013 calendar year.
The increase in oilfield services segment gross profit of $122.0 million year over year was due to the Anchor and SOS
Acquisitions in 2014. Volatility in crude oil and natural gas prices impacted our customers’ drilling and production activities, which
resulted in an unfavorable impact to our gross profit late in 2014. The decrease in crude oil prices created tighter market conditions
in the basins in which we operate.
Selling. Selling expenses increased $87.0 million, or 139.0%, to $149.6 million in 2014 from $62.6 million in 2013. This
decrease was due primarily to incremental selling expenses related to the Anchor, Bel-Ray and SOS Acquisitions, a $1.7 million
increase in advertising expense and a $0.7 million increase in professional fees expense.
General and administrative. General and administrative expenses increased $16.2 million, or 19.7%, to $98.3 million in
2014 from $82.1 million in 2013. The increase was due primarily to incremental general and administrative expenses related to
the Anchor, Bel-Ray and SOS Acquisitions, a $6.1 million increase in incentive compensation costs, a $2.6 million increase in
information technology related expenses and a $1.5 million increase in professional fees expense.
Transportation. Transportation expenses increased $28.7 million, or 20.1%, to $171.4 million in 2014 from $142.7 million in
2013. This increase is due primarily to incremental transportation expenses related to the Anchor, Bel-Ray and SOS Acquisitions
and increased crude oil sales to third parties, partially offset by decreased lubricating oil sales.
Other operating costs and expenses. Other operating costs and expenses increased $7.9 million, or 125.4%, to $14.2 million
in 2014 from $6.3 million in 2013. The increase was due primarily to increased environmental remediation expenses.
Interest expense. Interest expense increased $14.0 million, or 14.5%, to $110.8 million in 2014 from $96.8 million in 2013.
The increase is due primarily to additional outstanding long-term debt in the form of 2022 Notes (as defined below), 2021 Notes
(as defined below) and borrowings under our revolving credit facility, partially offset by lower interest expense resulting from the
redemption of the 2019 Notes.
Asset impairment. During 2014, we recorded an impairment charge of $36.0 million related to the oilfield services segment.
The impairment was driven primarily by our reduced outlook on revenues and profitability as a result of the extreme fluctuations
in crude oil prices during the fourth quarter of 2014.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment costs were $89.9 million in 2014. Debt extinguishment costs were due
primarily to the redemption of the remaining 2019 Notes with a portion of the net proceeds from the issuance of the 2021 Notes.
70
Please read Note 7 “Long-Term Debt” to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data” for additional information.
Derivative activity. The following table details the impact of our derivative instruments on the consolidated statements of
operations for 2014 and 2013:
Derivative loss reflected in sales
Derivative gain reflected in cost of sales
Derivative gain reflected in gross profit
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Derivative gain reflected in interest expense
Total derivative gain reflected in the consolidated statements of operations
Total gain (loss) on commodity derivative settlements
Year Ended December 31,
2013
2014
(In millions)
(9.0) $
46.0
37.0
$
43.8
(0.6)
3.3
83.5
87.5
$
$
$
(3.1)
3.6
0.5
(4.7)
25.7
—
21.5
(6.0)
$
$
$
$
$
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments. Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments decreased $48.5 million to a
gain of $43.8 million in 2014 from a loss of $4.7 million in 2013. The change was due primarily to increased realized gains of
approximately $22.8 million related to settlements of derivative instruments used to economically hedge crack spreads that are
not classified as hedges for accounting purposes, increased realized gains of approximately $13.4 million on crude oil basis swaps
used to economically hedge crude oil purchases and increased realized gains of $9.9 million related to ineffectiveness on settlements
of cash flow hedges.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments. Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments decreased $26.3 million
to a loss of $0.6 million in 2014 from a gain of $25.7 million in 2013. This change was due primarily to increased unrealized loss
ineffectiveness of approximately $41.6 million, partially offset by increased unrealized gains of $15.5 million related to derivative
instruments used to economically hedge crack spreads and natural gas that are not accounted for as hedges for accounting purposes.
Income tax expense (benefit). Income tax expense (benefit) decreased $1.2 million to a benefit of $0.8 million in 2014 from
an expense of $0.4 million in 2013. The change was due primarily to the Anchor Acquisition, which increased the proportion of
losses subject to federal, state and local income taxes.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our principal sources of cash have historically included cash flow from operations, proceeds from public equity offerings,
proceeds from notes offerings and bank borrowings. Principal uses of cash have included capital expenditures, acquisitions,
distributions to our limited partners and general partner and debt service. We expect that our principal uses of cash in the future
will be for distributions to our limited partners and general partner, debt service, replacement and environmental capital
expenditures, capital expenditures related to internal growth projects and acquisitions from third parties or affiliates.
We expect to fund future capital expenditures with current cash flow from operations, borrowings under our revolving credit
facility and by accessing capital markets as necessary. Future internal growth projects or acquisitions may require expenditures in
excess of our then-current cash flow from operations and borrowing availability under our existing revolving credit facility and
may require us to issue debt or equity securities in public or private offerings or incur additional borrowings under bank credit
facilities to meet those costs. We may from time to time seek to retire or purchase our outstanding debt through cash purchases
and/or exchanges for equity securities, in open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise. Such repurchases
or exchanges, if any, will depend on prevailing market conditions, our liquidity requirements, contractual restrictions and other
factors. The amounts involved may be material.
The borrowing base on our revolving credit facility declined from $575.9 million as of December 31, 2014, to $411.3
million at December 31, 2015, resulting in a corresponding decrease in our borrowing availability from $310.8 million at
December 31, 2014, to $233.5 million at December 31, 2015. The decline in the borrowing base on our revolving credit facility
was attributable to pronounced volatility in the price of crude oil, which declined by approximately 47% during the course of 2015,
versus the prior year. As the price of crude oil declined, the value of crude oil and product inventories used as collateral under our
revolving credit facility also declined, resulting in a reduction in the borrowing base.
In response to current commodity price volatility, we have taken or currently are taking the following steps to mitigate the
impact of such volatility on our operating results:
71
• we entered into an agreement with The Heritage Group (“Heritage”), an affiliate of our general partner, in which Heritage
made a $27.0 million uncommitted prepayment for the purchase of certain fuel products and entered into a $48.0 million
unsecured note payable with us as the borrower;
•
given the increased market value of certain of our derivative assets, our risk management committee approved the early
settlement of select calendar year 2016 derivative instruments. As a result of the settlement of these derivative assets, we
received approximately $22.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2015;
• we remain committed to an active hedging program to manage commodity price risk in our business. Due to the volatility
of the price of crude oil and the impact such volatility has had on our short-term cash flows, we may use derivative
instruments, primarily combinations of options or swaps, to mitigate our exposure to changes in crude oil prices and the
impact to our borrowing base. We continue to consider current crude oil prices, specialty products and fuel products gross
profit expectations and liquidity as the primary factors to determine the volume, time horizon and type of derivative
instruments we may execute. Due to the current economic environment and the complexities around derivative instruments,
we intend to maintain flexibility in the manner in which we hedge;
• we have deferred certain non-critical capital expenditures until the third and fourth quarters of 2016;
• we continue to implement strategies to reduce our working capital requirements across all of our operations and we expect
to maintain prudent levels of working capital to enhance liquidity; and
• we have entered into certain leasing arrangements versus purchasing assets to improve our cash flows.
Cash Flows from Operating, Investing and Financing Activities
We believe that we have sufficient liquid assets, cash flow from operations, borrowing capacity and adequate access to capital
markets to meet our financial commitments, debt service obligations 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 including a significant, sudden decrease in crude oil prices would likely produce a corollary material adverse effect on
our borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility and potentially our ability to comply with the covenants under our
revolving credit facility. A significant, sudden increase in crude oil prices, if sustained, would likely result in increased working
capital requirements which would be funded by borrowings under our revolving credit facility. In addition, our cash flow from
operations may be impacted by the timing of settlement of our derivative activities. Gains and losses from derivative instruments
that qualify as effective cash flow hedges are deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), but may impact operating
cash flow in the period settled. Gains and losses from derivative instruments that do not qualify as hedges are recorded in unrealized
gain (loss) until settlement and will impact operating cash flow in the period settled.
The following table summarizes our primary sources and uses of cash in each of the most recent three years:
Net cash provided by operating activities
Net cash used in investing activities
Net cash provided by financing activities
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In millions)
2013
$
$
$
376.4
(389.0)
9.7
(2.9) $
$
226.8
(658.8)
319.4
(112.6) $
39.1
(370.3)
420.1
88.9
Operating Activities. Operating activities provided cash of $376.4 million during 2015 compared to $226.8 million during
2014. The increase in cash provided by operating activities is due primarily to decreased working capital requirements in 2015
providing $117.9 million compared to 2014 working capital requirements providing $25.1 million as well as an increase in operating
cash flows of $84.0 million, partially offset by an increased net loss of $27.2 million. Working capital improvements were primarily
driven by decreased accounts receivable and inventories.
Operating activities provided $226.8 million in cash during 2014 compared to $39.1 million during 2013. The increase in
cash provided by operating activities is due primarily to decreased working capital requirements in 2014 providing $25.1 million,
compared to 2013 working capital requirements using $101.4 million as well as an increase in operating cash flows of $176.9
million, partially offset by decreased net income of $115.7 million. Working capital improvements were primarily driven by
decreased inventories, accounts receivable and turnaround costs, $44.8 million related to the early settlement of certain crack
spread derivative instruments and a gain on sales of RINs of $18.2 million.
Investing Activities. Cash used in investing activities decreased to $389.0 million in 2015 compared to $658.8 million in
2014. The decrease is due primarily to the higher combined purchase price of $263.6 million for the Anchor, United Petroleum
and SOS Acquisitions, which closed in 2014, with no similar activity in 2015, a decrease in net joint venture investments to the
72
Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC and Juniper GTL LLC joint ventures of $55.2 million, partially offset by an increase in capital
expenditures of $49.4 million due primarily to the capital improvement projects discussed below.
Cash used in investing activities increased to $658.8 million in 2014 compared to $370.3 million in 2013. The increase is
due primarily to the higher combined purchase price of $263.6 million for the United Petroleum, Anchor and SOS Acquisitions,
which closed in 2014 compared to a combined purchase price of $177.7 million for the San Antonio, Crude Oil Logistics and Bel-
Ray Acquisitions in 2013, an increase in capital expenditures of $129.1 million due primarily to the capital improvement projects
discussed below and $105.4 million contributed to the Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC and Juniper GTL LLC joint ventures.
Financing Activities. Financing activities provided cash of $9.7 million during 2015 compared to $319.4 million during
2014. This decrease is due primarily to decreased net proceeds from the private placements of senior notes of $563.1 million,
repayments of $39.8 million on the revolving credit facility in 2015 compared to use of $150.8 million of net proceeds from
revolving credit facility borrowings in 2014 and increased distributions of $14.4 million. Partially offsetting these decreases are
the redemption of the 2019 Notes of $500.0 million in 2014 compared to the redemption of the 2020 Notes of $275.0 million in
2015, an increase in net proceeds from public offerings of common units (including our general partner’s contributions) of $163.9
million and $75.0 million of proceeds from a related party note payable.
Financing activities provided cash of $319.4 million during 2014 compared to $420.1 million during 2013. The decrease is
due primarily to the redemption of the remaining 2019 Notes of $500.0 million, a decrease in net proceeds from public offerings
of common units (including our general partner’s contributions) of $397.2 million and increased distributions to our unitholders
of $8.6 million. Partially offsetting these decreases are increased net proceeds from the private placement of senior notes of $555.3
million and increased revolving credit facility borrowings of $150.8 million.
Acquisitions
Acquisitions impact our results of operations commencing on the closing date of each acquisition. Our acquisitions are
discussed further in Note 3 “Acquisitions” in the notes to our consolidated financial statements under Part II, Item 8 “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.” Information regarding acquisitions completed in 2015, 2014 and 2013 is set forth in the
table below (in millions):
Acquisition
Closing Date
Purchase Price
Funding Methods
United Petroleum
February 28, 2014
Anchor
SOS
2014 Total
March 31, 2014
August 1, 2014
San Antonio
January 2, 2013
Crude Oil Logistics Assets August 9, 2013
December 10, 2013
Bel-Ray
2013 Total
Joint Ventures
Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC
$
$
$
$
10.4 Cash on hand
223.6
Net proceeds from our March 2014 private placement
of 2021 Notes
29.6 Borrowings under our revolving credit facility
263.6
Segment
Specialty Products
Oilfield Services
Oilfield Services
117.9 Borrowings under our revolving credit facility
6.2 Cash on hand
Fuel Products
Fuel Products
Net proceeds from our November 2013 private
placement of 2022 Notes
Specialty Products
53.6
177.7
On February 7, 2013, we entered into a joint venture agreement with MDU Resources Group, Inc. (“MDU”) to develop,
build and operate a diesel refinery in southwestern North Dakota. The joint venture is named Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC (“Dakota
Prairie”). The capitalization of the construction cost was funded through cash contributions from MDU, cash contributions from
us and proceeds of $75.0 million from a syndicated term loan facility with the joint venture as the borrower, which is expected to
be repaid by us through our allocation of profits from the joint venture. The term loan facility was funded in April 2013. In addition
to the $300.0 million commitment outlined in the joint venture agreement, we and MDU made additional cash contributions, net
of distributions, in the amount of $88.6 million and $80.4 million, respectively, to fund construction costs and working capital
needs. Additionally, we and MDU may make cash contributions to fund working capital needs. The joint venture allocates profits
on a 50%/50% basis to us and MDU, except for the adjustments made to our share for repayment of the principle and interest of
the $75.0 million term loan as noted above. The joint venture is governed by a board of managers comprised of representatives
from both us and MDU. MDU is providing natural gas and electricity utility services. We are providing refinery operations, crude
oil procurement and refined product marketing expertise to the joint venture. Dakota Prairie commenced sales of finished products
in May 2015. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we have an investment of $124.7 million and $117.2 million, respectively, in
Dakota Prairie.
73
Juniper GTL LLC
On June 9, 2014, we entered into a joint venture agreement with Clean Fuels North America, LLC, which is owned by SGC
Energia and Great Northern Project Development, to develop, build and operate a gas-to-liquids (“GTL”) plant in Lake Charles,
Louisiana. The joint venture is named New Source Fuels, LLC, and it owns 100% of Juniper GTL LLC (“Juniper”). We invested
$25.0 million in total in exchange for an equity interest of approximately 23% in the joint venture. During the third quarter of
2015, we determined the fair value of our investment in Juniper was less than its carrying value of $24.3 million. As a result, we
recorded a $24.3 million impairment charge in loss from unconsolidated affiliates in the consolidated statement of operations for
the year ended December 31, 2015.
Capital Expenditures
Our property, plant and equipment 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, to expand existing facilities, such as projects that increase operating capacity, or to reduce operating
costs. 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. Turnaround capital expenditures represent
capitalized costs associated with our periodic major maintenance and repairs.
The following table sets forth our capital improvement expenditures, replacement capital expenditures, environmental capital
expenditures, turnaround capital expenditures and joint venture contributions in each of the periods shown (including capitalized
interest):
Capital improvement expenditures
Replacement capital expenditures
Environmental capital expenditures
Turnaround capital expenditures
Joint venture contributions, net of return of investment
Total
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In millions)
2013
$
$
311.7
28.9
15.3
19.3
50.2
425.4
$
$
284.9
18.8
13.0
27.6
105.4
449.7
$
$
109.7
33.8
30.4
68.6
31.8
274.3
We anticipate that future capital expenditure requirements will be provided primarily through cash flow from operations,
cash on hand, available borrowings under our revolving credit facility and by accessing capital markets as necessary. If future
capital expenditures require expenditures in excess of our then-current cash flow from operations and borrowing availability under
our existing revolving credit facility, we may be required to issue debt or equity securities in public or private offerings or incur
additional borrowings under bank credit facilities to meet those costs.
We estimate our replacement and environmental capital expenditures will be $50.0 million to $60.0 million in 2016. These
estimated amounts for 2016 include a portion of the $3.0 million to $5.0 million in environmental projects to be spent as required
by our settlement with the LDEQ under the “Small Refinery and Single Site Refining Initiative.” Please read Part I, Items 1 and
2 “Business and Properties — Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters — Air Emissions” for additional
information.
We estimate we will spend approximately $60.0 million to $70.0 million in 2016 on capital investment in growth projects.
Our primary capital improvements projects in 2015 included the following:
• Montana Refinery Expansion — In February 2016, we completed an expansion project that increased production capacity
at our Montana refinery by 15,000 bpd to 25,000 bpd.
• Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC — Dakota Prairie, a 20,000 bpd diesel refinery in southwestern North Dakota, was
commissioned in April 2015 and commenced sales of finished products in May 2015.
We estimate turnaround spending requirements will be $5.0 million to $10.0 million for 2016 primarily related to scheduled
turnaround activity at our Shreveport refinery. We expect these expenditures will be funded primarily through cash flow from
operations. During 2015, we spent approximately $19.3 million primarily related to scheduled turnaround activities at our
Shreveport, San Antonio and Princeton refineries, funded through cash flow from operations and borrowings under our revolving
credit facility.
74
Debt and Credit Facilities
As of December 31, 2015, our primary debt and credit instruments consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
a $1.0 billion senior secured revolving credit facility maturing in July 2019, subject to borrowing base limitations, with
a maximum letter of credit sublimit equal to $600.0 million, which amount may be increased to 90% of revolver
commitments in effect with the consent of the Agent (as defined in the revolving credit agreement) (“revolving credit
facility”);
$900.0 million of 6.50% senior notes due 2021 (“2021 Notes”);
$350.0 million of 7.625% senior notes due 2022 (“2022 Notes”);
$325.0 million of 7.75% senior notes due 2023 (“2023 Notes”); and
$73.5 million related party note payable.
On April 27, 2015, we redeemed $96.2 million aggregate principal amount outstanding of 9.625% Senior Notes due August
1, 2020 (“2020 Notes”), with a portion of the net proceeds of the March 13, 2015, public offering of our common units in which
we sold 6,000,000 common units. Additionally, on April 28, 2015, we redeemed the remaining $178.8 million aggregate principal
amount outstanding of 2020 Notes with a portion of the net proceeds from the issuance of the 2023 Notes.
We were in compliance with all covenants under our debt instruments in place as of December 31, 2015, and have adequate
liquidity to conduct our business.
Short Term Liquidity
As of December 31, 2015, our principal sources of short-term liquidity were (i) $233.5 million of availability under our
revolving credit facility and (ii) $5.6 million of cash. Borrowings under our revolving credit facility can be used for, among other
things, working capital, capital expenditures, and other lawful partnership purposes including acquisitions.
Borrowings under the revolving credit facility are limited to a borrowing base that is determined based on advance rates of
percentages of Eligible Accounts Receivable and Eligible Inventory (as defined in the revolving credit agreement). As such, the
borrowing base can fluctuate based on changes in selling prices of our products and our current material costs, primarily the cost
of crude oil. On December 31, 2015, we had availability on our revolving credit facility of $233.5 million, based on a $411.3
million borrowing base, $66.8 million in outstanding standby letters of credit and $111.0 million of outstanding borrowings. The
borrowing base cannot exceed the revolving credit facility commitments then in effect. The lender group under our revolving credit
facility is comprised of a syndicate of fifteen lenders with total commitments of $1.0 billion. The lenders under our revolving
credit facility have a first priority lien on our accounts receivable, inventory and substantially all of our cash.
Amounts outstanding under our revolving credit facility fluctuate materially during each quarter mainly due to cash flow
from operations, normal changes in working capital, payments of quarterly distributions to unitholders, capital expenditures and
debt service costs. Specifically, the amount borrowed under our revolving credit facility is typically at its highest level after we
pay for the majority of our crude oil supply on the 20th day of every month per standard industry terms. The maximum revolving
credit facility borrowings during the quarter ended December 31, 2015, were $238.0 million. Our availability on our revolving
credit facility during the peak borrowing days of the quarter has been ample to support our operations and service upcoming
requirements. During the quarter ended December 31, 2015, availability for additional borrowings under our revolving credit
facility was approximately $143.1 million at its lowest point.
The revolving credit facility currently bears interest at a rate equal to prime plus a basis points margin or LIBOR plus a basis
points margin, at our option. As of December 31, 2015, this margin was 75 basis points for prime and 175 basis points for LIBOR;
however, the margin can fluctuate quarterly based on our average availability for additional borrowings under the revolving credit
facility in the preceding calendar quarter.
In addition to paying interest on outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, we are required to pay a
commitment fee to the lenders under the revolving credit facility with respect to the unutilized commitments thereunder at a rate
equal to either 0.250% or 0.375% per annum depending on the average daily available unused borrowing capacity for the preceding
month. We also pay a customary letter of credit fee, including a fronting fee of 0.125% per annum of the stated amount of each
outstanding letter of credit, and customary agency fees.
Our revolving credit facility contains various covenants that limit, among other things, our ability to: incur indebtedness;
grant liens; dispose of certain assets; make certain acquisitions and investments; redeem or prepay other debt or make other
restricted payments such as distributions to unitholders; enter into transactions with affiliates; and enter into a merger, consolidation
or sale of assets. The revolving credit facility generally permits us to make cash distributions to our unitholders as long as immediately
75
after giving effect to such a cash distribution we have cash and availability under the revolving credit facility totaling at least the
greater of (i) 15% of the Borrowing Base (as defined in the credit agreement) then in effect and (ii) $70.0 million. Further, the
revolving credit facility contains one springing financial covenant which provides that only if our availability under the revolving
credit facility falls below the greater of (a) 12.5% of the Borrowing Base (as defined in the credit agreement) then in effect and
(b) $45.0 million, we will be required to maintain as of the end of each fiscal quarter a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined
in the credit agreement) of at least 1.0 to 1.0.
If an event of default exists under the revolving credit facility, the lenders will be able to accelerate the maturity of the credit
facility and exercise other rights and remedies. An event of default includes, among other things, the 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 revolving credit facility or other loan documents, subject, in limited circumstances, to
certain grace periods; cross-defaults in other indebtedness if the effect of such default is to cause, or permit the holders of such
indebtedness to cause, the acceleration of such indebtedness under any material agreement; bankruptcy or insolvency events;
monetary judgment defaults; asserted invalidity of the loan documentation; and a change of control.
As of December 31, 2015, we were in compliance with all covenants under the revolving credit facility.
For additional information regarding our revolving credit facility, see Note 7 “Long-Term Debt” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Long-Term Financing
In addition to our principal sources of short-term liquidity listed above, we can meet our cash requirements (other than
distributions of Available Cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) to our common unitholders) through the issuance of long-
term notes or additional common units.
From time to time we issue long-term debt securities, referred to as our senior notes. All of our outstanding senior notes are
unsecured obligations that rank equally with all of our other senior debt obligations to the extent they are unsecured. As of
December 31, 2015, we had $900.0 million in 2021 Notes, $350.0 million in 2022 Notes and $325.0 million in 2023 Notes
outstanding. As of December 31, 2014, we had $275.0 million in 2020 Notes, $900.0 million in 2021 Notes and $350.0 million
in 2022 Notes outstanding. In April 2015, we redeemed all of the $275.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2020 Notes.
The indentures governing our senior notes contain covenants that, among other things, restrict our ability and the ability of
certain of our subsidiaries to: (i) sell assets; (ii) pay distributions on, redeem or repurchase our common units or redeem or repurchase
its subordinated debt; (iii) make investments; (iv) incur or guarantee additional indebtedness or issue preferred units; (v) create or
incur certain liens; (vi) enter into agreements that restrict distributions or other payments from our restricted subsidiaries to us;
(vii) consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially all of our assets; (viii) engage in transactions with affiliates and (ix) create
unrestricted subsidiaries. These covenants are subject to important exceptions and qualifications. At any time when the senior
notes are rated investment grade by either Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) or Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services
(“S&P”) and no Default or Event of Default, each as defined in the indentures governing the senior notes, has occurred and is
continuing, many of these covenants will be suspended. As of December 31, 2015, our Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined
in the indentures governing the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes) was 1.9 to 1.0.
Upon the occurrence of certain change of control events, each holder of the senior notes will have the right to require that
we repurchase all or a portion of such holder’s senior notes in cash at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount
thereof, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase.
To date, our debt balances have not adversely affected our operations, our ability to grow or our ability to repay or refinance
our indebtedness. Based on our historical record, we believe that our capital structure will continue to allow us to achieve our
business objectives.
We are subject, however, to conditions in the equity and debt markets for our common units and long-term senior notes, and
there can be no assurance we will be able or willing to access the public or private markets for our common units and/or senior
notes in the future. If we are unable or unwilling to issue additional common units, we may be required to either restrict capital
expenditures and/or potential future acquisitions or pursue debt financing alternatives, some of which could involve higher costs
or negatively affect our credit ratings. Furthermore, our ability to access the public and private debt markets is affected by our
credit ratings.
For additional information regarding our senior notes, see Note 7 “Long-Term Debt” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data.”
76
Master Derivative Contracts and Collateral Trust Agreement
Under our credit support arrangements, our payment obligations under all of our master derivatives contracts for commodity
hedging generally are secured by a first priority lien on our and our subsidiaries’ real property, plant and equipment, fixtures,
intellectual property, certain financial assets, certain investment property, commercial tort claims, chattel paper, documents,
instruments and proceeds of the foregoing (including proceeds of hedge arrangements). We had no additional letters of credit or
cash margin posted with any hedging counterparty as of December 31, 2015. Our master derivatives contracts and Collateral Trust
Agreement (as defined below) continue to impose a number of covenant limitations on our operating and financing activities,
including limitations on liens on collateral, limitations on dispositions of collateral and collateral maintenance and insurance
requirements. For financial reporting purposes, we do not offset the collateral provided to a counterparty against the fair value of
our obligation to that counterparty. Any outstanding collateral is released to us upon settlement of the related derivative instrument
liability.
The fair value of our derivatives that were outstanding as of December 31, 2015, decreased by approximately $9.0 million
subsequent to December 31, 2015, to a net liability of approximately $38.0 million. All credit support thresholds with our hedging
counterparties are at levels such that it would take a substantial increase in fuel products crack spreads or interest rates to require
significant additional collateral to be posted. As a result, we do not expect further increases in fuel products crack spreads or interest
rates to significantly impact our liquidity.
Additionally, we have a collateral trust agreement (the “Collateral Trust Agreement”) which governs how secured hedging
counterparties will share collateral pledged as security for the payment obligations owed by us to secured hedging counterparties
under their respective master derivatives contracts. The Collateral Trust Agreement limits to $100.0 million the extent to which
forward purchase contracts for physical commodities are covered by, and secured under, the Collateral Trust Agreement. There is
no such limit on financially settled derivative instruments used for commodity hedging. Subject to certain conditions set forth in
the Collateral Trust Agreement, we have the ability to add secured hedging counterparties from time to time.
Equity Transactions
We have entered into an Equity Placement Agreement with various sales agents under which we may issue and sell, from
time to time, common units representing limited partner interests, having an aggregate offering price of up to $300.0 million
through one or more sales agents. The Equity Placement Agreement provides us the right, but not the obligation, to sell common
units in the future, at prices we deem appropriate. These sales, if any, will be made pursuant to the terms of the Equity Placement
Agreement between us and the sales agents. The net proceeds from any sales under this agreement will be used for general
partnership purposes, which may include, among other things, repayment of indebtedness, working capital, capital expenditures
and acquisitions. Our general partner contributed its proportionate capital contribution to retain its 2% general partner interest.
For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we sold 432,167 and 134,955, respectively, common units under the Equity
Placement Agreement for net proceeds of $10.2 million and $3.6 million, respectively. Underwriting discounts for 2015 and 2014
totaled $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively, and our general partner contributed $0.2 million and $0.1 million, respectively,
to maintain its general partner interest.
During 2015, 2014 and 2013, we completed the following marketed public offerings of common units (in millions, except
unit and per unit data):
Closing Date
Number of
Common
Units Offered
Price
per Unit
Net
Proceeds (1)
General Partner
Contribution (2)
Underwriting
Discount
January 8, 2013
5,750,000 (3)
$ 31.81
April 1, 2013
6,037,500 (4)
$ 37.50
$
$
175.2
217.3
$
$
3.8
4.6
$
$
7.4
9.1
March 13, 2015
6,000,000
$ 26.75
$
153.9
$
3.3
$
6.4
Use of Proceeds
Net proceeds were used to
repay borrowings under the
revolving credit facility and for
general partnership purposes.
Net proceeds were used for
general partnership purposes.
Net proceeds were used to
redeem a portion of the 2020
Notes and to repay borrowings
under the revolving credit
facility.
(1) Proceeds are net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but before our general partner’s capital contribution.
(2) Our general partner contributions were made to retain its 2% general partner interest.
77
(3)
(4)
Includes the full exercise of the overallotment option of 750,000 common units which closed concurrently with the 5,000,000
firm units on January 8, 2013.
Includes the full exercise of the overallotment option of 787,500 common units which closed on April 4, 2013.
During 2015 and through February 2016, we have made the following cash distributions on all outstanding common units
(including our general partner’s incentive distribution rights) (in millions except per unit data):
Quarter Ended
Declaration Date
Record Date
Distribution Date
December 31, 2014
January 23, 2015
February 3, 2015
February 13, 2015
March 31, 2015
April 20, 2015
May 5, 2015
May 15, 2015
June 30, 2015
July 21, 2015
August 4, 2015
August 14, 2015
September 30, 2015
October 22, 2015
November 3, 2015
November 13, 2015
December 31, 2015
January 19, 2016
February 2, 2016
February 12, 2016
Seasonality Impacts on Liquidity
Quarterly
Distribution
per Unit
Aggregate
Quarterly
Distribution
Annualized
Distribution
per Unit
Aggregate
Annualized
Distribution
$
$
$
$
$
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
$
$
$
$
$
52.7
57.3
57.3
57.3
57.4
$
$
$
$
$
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
$
$
$
$
$
210.8
229.2
229.2
229.2
229.6
The operating results for the fuel products segment, including the selling prices of asphalt products we produce, generally
follow seasonal demand trends. 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 the road construction and roofing industries we supply. Demand for gasoline
and diesel 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 demand for natural gas as a heating fuel
increases during the winter. 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 due to seasonality related to these and other products that we produce and sell.
The operating results for the oilfield services segment follow seasonal changes in weather and significant weather events
can temporarily affect the performance and delivery of our oilfield services and products. The severity and duration of the winter
can have a significant impact on drilling activity. Additionally, customer spending patterns for other oilfield services and products
can result in lower activity in the fourth calendar quarter.
Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
A summary of our total contractual cash obligations as of December 31, 2015, at current maturities is as follows:
Payments Due by Period
Total
Less Than
1 Year
1–3
Years
3–5
Years
More Than
5 Years
(In millions)
Operating Activities:
Interest on long-term and short-term debt at contractual rates
and maturities (1)
Operating lease obligations (2)
Letters of credit (3)
Purchase commitments (4)
Pension obligations
Employment agreements
$
$
794.1
180.1
66.8
811.3
8.5
7.0
Financing Activities:
Capital lease obligations
Note payable - related party
Long-term debt obligations, excluding capital lease obligations
46.4
75.0
1,686.0
$
125.0
42.8
66.8
493.6
1.9
4.0
1.7
75.0
—
$
244.3
71.3
—
237.4
1.3
2.1
3.1
—
—
$
235.7
39.0
—
80.3
1.6
0.9
2.2
—
189.1
27.0
—
—
3.7
—
39.4
—
111.0
1,575.0
Total obligations
$ 3,675.2
$
810.8
$
559.5
$
470.7
$ 1,834.2
(1)
Interest on long-term and short-term debt at contractual rates and maturities relates primarily to interest on our senior notes,
revolving credit facility interest and fees, interest on our related party note payable and interest on our capital lease obligations,
which excludes the adjustment for the interest rate swap agreement.
78
(2) We have various operating leases primarily for railcars, the use of land, storage tanks, compressor stations, equipment,
precious metals and office facilities that extend through July 2055.
(3) Letters of credit primarily supporting crude oil purchases and precious metals leasing.
(4) Purchase commitments consist primarily of obligations to purchase fixed volumes of crude oil, other feedstocks, finished
products for resale and renewable fuels from various suppliers based on current market prices at the time of delivery.
In connection with the closing of the acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008, we entered into a feedstock purchase
agreement with Phillips 66 related to the LVT unit at its Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery (the “LVT Feedstock Agreement”).
Pursuant to the LVT Feedstock Agreement, Phillips 66 is obligated to supply a minimum quantity (the “Base Volume”) of feedstock
for the LVT unit for a term of ten years. Based upon this minimum supply quantity, we expect to purchase $27.5 million of feedstock
for the LVT unit in each fiscal year of the term based on pricing estimates as of December 31, 2015. This amount is not included
in the table above.
For additional information regarding our expected capital and turnaround expenditures, for which we have not contractually
committed, refer to “Capital Expenditures” above.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We did not enter into any material off-balance sheet debt or operating lease transactions during the fiscal year 2015.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. 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 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” 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, all of our obligations related
to the product have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have been transferred to the buyer, which is primarily upon
shipment to the customer or, in certain cases, upon receipt by the customer in accordance with contractual terms. We recognize
revenue on certain drilling fluids and completion fluids when consumed at the customer site during the drilling process.
We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses in the collection of accounts receivable.
Inventory
The cost of inventory is recorded using the 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. Under the LIFO method, the most recently
incurred costs are charged to cost of sales and inventories are valued at the earliest acquisition costs. In periods of rapidly declining
prices, LIFO inventories may have to be written down to market value due to the higher costs assigned to LIFO layers in prior
periods. Such write downs are subject to reversal in subsequent periods, not to exceed LIFO cost, if prices recover. In addition,
the use of the LIFO inventory method may result in increases or decreases to cost of sales in years that inventory volumes decline
as the result of charging cost of sales with LIFO inventory costs generated in prior periods. Accordingly, interim LIFO calculations
are based on management’s estimates of expected year-end inventory levels and are subject to the final year-end LIFO inventory
valuation.
79
Significant Estimates and Assumptions
Judgment is required in determining the market value of inventory, as the geographic location impacts market prices, and
quoted market prices may not be available for the particular location of our inventory. 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, 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 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.
Sensitivity Analysis
We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology we use to establish our markdown or inventory loss
adjustments during the past three fiscal years.
The replacement cost of our inventory, based on current market values, would have been $41.0 million lower and $18.9
million lower at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recorded
$81.8 million and $74.1 million, respectively, of losses in cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations due to the
lower of cost or market inventory valuation. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recorded $24.3 million and
$26.5 million, respectively, of losses in cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations due to the liquidation of higher
cost LIFO inventory layers.
Valuation of Definite Long-Lived Assets
Property, plant and equipment and intangible assets with finite lives are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes
in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. If the estimated undiscounted future cash
flows related to the asset are less than the carrying value, we recognize a loss equal to the difference between the carrying value
and the estimated fair value, usually determined by the estimated discounted future cash flows of the asset. When a decision has
been made to dispose of property and equipment prior to the end of the previously estimated useful life, depreciation estimates
are revised to reflect the use of the asset over the shortened estimated useful life.
Significant Estimates and Assumptions
Estimated undiscounted future cash flows are used for the purpose of testing our definite long-lived assets for impairment.
Fair values calculated for the purpose of measuring impairments on definite long-lived assets are estimated using the expected
present value of future cash flows method and comparative market prices when appropriate. Significant judgment is involved in
estimating undiscounted future cash flows and performing these fair value estimates since the results are based on forecasted
assumptions. Significant assumptions include:
• Future margins on products produced and sold. Our estimates of future product margins are based on our analysis of
various supply and demand factors, which include, among other things, industry-wide capacity, our planned utilization
rate, end-user demand, capital expenditures and economic conditions. Such estimates are consistent with those used in
our planning and capital investment reviews.
• Future capital requirements. These are based on authorized spending and internal forecasts.
• Discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. We apply a discount rate to our cash flows based on a variety of
factors, including market and economic conditions, operational risk, regulatory risk and political risk. This discount rate
is also compared to recent observable market transactions, if possible. A higher discount rate decreases the net present
value of cash flows.
We base our estimated undiscounted future cash flows and fair value estimates on projected financial information which we
believe to be reasonable. However, actual results may differ from these projections.
Sensitivity Analysis
An estimate of the sensitivity to net income resulting from impairment calculations is not practicable, given the numerous
assumptions (e.g., pricing, volumes and discount rates) that can materially affect our estimates. That is, unfavorable adjustments
to some of the above listed assumptions may be offset by favorable adjustments in other assumptions.
Valuation of Goodwill and Indefinite Lived Intangible Assets
We review goodwill for impairment annually on October 1 and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate its
carrying value may not be recoverable in accordance with ASC 350, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing
Goodwill for Impairment (“ASU 2011-08”). Under ASU 2011-08, an entity has the option to first assess qualitative factors to
determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair
value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity
80
determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the
two-step impairment test is unnecessary.
In assessing the qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is
less than its carrying amount, we assess relevant events and circumstances that may impact the fair value and the carrying amount
of the reporting unit. The identification of relevant events and circumstances and how these may impact a reporting unit’s fair
value or carrying amount involve significant judgment and assumptions. The judgment and assumptions include the identification
of macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance and Company specific
events and the assessment on whether each relevant factor will impact the impairment test positively or negatively and the magnitude
of any such impact.
If our qualitative assessment concludes that it is probable that an impairment exists or we skip the qualitative assessment,
then we need to perform a quantitative assessment. In the first step of the quantitative assessment, our assets and liabilities, including
existing goodwill and other intangible assets, are assigned to the identified reporting units to determine the carrying value of the
reporting units. If the carrying value of a reporting unit is in excess of its fair value, an impairment may exist, and we must perform
an impairment analysis, in which the implied fair value of the goodwill is compared to its carrying value to determine the impairment
charge, if any.
When performing the quantitative assessment, the fair value of the reporting units is determined using the income approach.
The income approach focuses on the income-producing capability of an asset, measuring the current value of the asset by calculating
the present value of its future economic benefits such as cash earnings, cost savings, corporate tax structure and product offerings.
Value indications are developed by discounting expected cash flows to their present value at a rate of return that incorporates the
risk-free rate for the use of funds, the expected rate of inflation, and risks associated with the reporting unit.
Intangible assets with an indefinite life are not amortized but are subject to review each reporting period to determine whether
events and circumstances continue to support an indefinite useful life as well as an annual impairment test.
Due to the continued decline in crude oil prices, we updated our goodwill impairment analysis through September 30, 2015,
resulting in the fair value of one reporting unit to be less than its carrying value. The discount rate used in our reporting unit
valuation was 15.5%. Revenue growth rates assumed for this reporting unit ranged from (17)% to 18% in 2015 through 2020 and
3% thereafter. A significant decline in our revenue and earnings or a significant decline in the price of common stock could result
in an impairment charge in the future. An impairment charge of $33.8 million was recorded on goodwill as a result of this step 2
analysis.
Significant Estimates and Assumptions
Fair values calculated for the purpose of testing our goodwill and indefinite lived intangible assets for impairment is estimated
using the expected present value of future cash flows method and comparative market prices when appropriate. Significant judgment
is involved in performing these fair value estimates since the results are based on forecasted assumptions. Significant assumptions
include:
• Future margins on products produced and sold. Our estimates of future product margins are based on our analysis of
various supply and demand factors, which include, among other things, industry-wide capacity, our planned utilization
rate, end-user demand, crack spreads, capital expenditures and economic conditions. Such estimates are consistent with
those used in our planning and capital investment reviews and include recent historical prices and published forward
prices.
• Discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. We apply a discount rate to our cash flows based on a variety of
factors, including market and economic conditions, operational risk, regulatory risk and political risk. This discount rate
is also compared to recent observable market transactions, if possible. A higher discount rate decreases the net present
value of cash flows.
• Future capital requirements. These are based on authorized spending and internal forecasts.
We base our fair value estimates on projected financial information which we believe to be reasonable. However, actual
results may differ from these projections.
Sensitivity Analysis
An estimate of the sensitivity to net income resulting from impairment calculations is not practicable, given the numerous
assumptions (e.g., pricing, volumes and discount rates) that can materially affect our estimates. That is, unfavorable adjustments
to some of the above listed assumptions may be offset by favorable adjustments in other assumptions.
81
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
As of December 31, 2015, approximately 28% of our recurring liabilities were measured at fair value and classified as Level
3 in the fair value hierarchy. As of December 31, 2015, we had no recurring assets measured at fair value and classified as Level
3 in the fair value hierarchy.
Derivative Instruments
In accordance with ASC 815-10, Derivatives and Hedging, we recognize all derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities
at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets. Our derivative instruments are valued at Level 3 fair value measurement under
ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, depending upon the degree by which inputs are observable.
The decrease in the fair market value of our outstanding derivative instruments from a net asset of $17.6 million as of
December 31, 2014, to a net liability of $33.9 million as of December 31, 2015, was due primarily to increases in the forward
market values of fuel products margins, or crack spreads, relative to our hedged products margins and settlements of derivatives
in 2015 that resulted in realized gains. We recorded realized gains of $8.1 million and unrealized losses of $39.5 million on
derivative instruments for the year ended December 31, 2015.
The increase in the fair market value of our outstanding derivative instruments from a net liability of $54.8 million as of
December 31, 2013, to a net asset of $17.6 million as of December 31, 2014, was due primarily to decreases in the forward market
values of fuel products margins, or crack spreads, relative to our hedged products margins, partially offset by settlements of
derivatives in 2014 that resulted in realized gains. We recorded realized gains of $43.8 million and unrealized losses of $0.6 million
on derivative instruments for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Significant Estimates and Assumptions
Our derivative instruments consist of over-the-counter contracts, which are not traded on a public exchange. Substantially
all of our derivative instruments are with counterparties that have long-term credit ratings of at least Baa1 and BBB+ by Moody’s
and S&P, respectively.
To estimate the fair values of our derivative instruments, we use the forward rate, the strike price, contractual notional
amounts, the risk free rate of return and contract maturity. Various analytical tests are performed to validate the counterparty data.
The fair values of our derivative instruments are adjusted for nonperformance risk and creditworthiness of the hedging entities
through our credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”). The CVA is calculated at the transaction level utilizing the fair value exposure
at each payment date and applying a weighted probability of the appropriate survival and marginal default percentages. We use
the counterparty’s marginal default rate and our survival rate when we are in a net asset position at the payment date and use our
marginal default rate and the counterparty’s survival rate when we are in a net liability position at the payment date. As a result
of applying the applicable CVA at December 31, 2015, our net liability was reduced by approximately $1.2 million. As a result of
applying the CVA at December 31, 2014, our net asset was increased by approximately $2.0 million and net liability was reduced
by approximately $0.1 million.
Observable inputs utilized to estimate the fair values of our derivative instruments were primarily based on inputs that are
readily available in public markets or can be derived from information available in publicly quoted markets. Based on the use of
various unobservable inputs, principally non-performance risk, creditworthiness of the hedging entities and unobservable inputs
in the forward rate, we have categorized these derivative instruments as Level 3. Significant increases (decreases) in any of those
unobservable inputs in isolation would result in a significantly lower (higher) fair value measurement. We believe we have obtained
the most accurate information available for the types of derivative instruments we hold. See Note 8 “Derivatives” in Part II, Item
8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for further information on derivative instruments.
Sensitivity Analysis
We have not made any material changes in the accounting methodology we use to establish our derivative values or pension
asset valuations during the past three fiscal years. We have consistently applied these valuation techniques in all periods presented
and believe we obtained the most accurate information available for the types of derivative instruments and pension assets we
hold.
We believe that the fair values of our derivative instruments may diverge materially from the amounts currently recorded at
fair value at settlement due to the volatility of commodity prices. Holding all other variables constant, we expect a $1.00 increase
in the applicable commodity prices would change our recorded mark-to-market valuation by the following amounts based upon
the volumes hedged as of December 31, 2015:
82
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis swaps
Crude oil options
Gasoline crack spread swaps
Natural gas swaps
Natural gas collars
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In millions
0.7
1.5
3.7
0.4
(0.9)
13.4
0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
For a summary of recently issued and adopted accounting standards applicable to us, see Note 2 “Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies” in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Commodity Price Risk
Derivative Instruments
We are exposed to price risks due to fluctuations in the price of crude oil, refined products (primarily in our fuel products
segment), natural gas and precious metals. We use various strategies to reduce our exposure to commodity price risk. We do not
attempt to eliminate all of our risk as the costs of such actions are believed to be too high in relation to the risk posed to our future
cash flows, earnings and liquidity. The strategies we use to reduce our risk utilize both physical forward contracts and financially
settled derivative instruments, such as swaps, collars and options, to attempt to reduce our exposure with respect to:
•
•
•
•
•
crude oil purchases and sales;
refined product sales and purchases;
natural gas purchases;
precious metals; and
fluctuations in the value of crude oil between geographic regions and between the different types of crude oil such as
NYMEX WTI, Light Louisiana Sweet (“LLS”), Western Canadian Select (“WCS”), Mixed Sweet Blend (“MSW”) and
ICE Brent (“Brent”).
We manage our exposure to commodity markets, credit, volumetric and liquidity risks to manage our costs and volatility of
cash flows as conditions warrant or opportunities become available. These risks may be managed in a variety of ways that may
include the use of derivative instruments. Derivative instruments may be used for the purpose of mitigating risks associated with
an asset, liability and anticipated future transactions and the changes in fair value of our derivative instruments will affect our
earnings and cash flows; however, such changes should be offset by price or rate changes related to the underlying commodity or
financial transaction that is part of the risk management strategy. We do not speculate with derivative instruments or other contractual
arrangements that are not associated with our business objectives. Speculation is defined as increasing our natural position above
the maximum position of our physical assets or trading in commodities, currencies or other risk bearing assets that are not associated
with our business activities and objectives. Our positions are monitored routinely by a risk management committee and discussed
with our board of directors quarterly to ensure compliance with our stated risk management policy and documented risk management
strategies. All strategies are reviewed on an ongoing basis by our risk management committee, which will add, remove or revise
strategies in anticipation of changes in market conditions and/or in risk profiles. These changes in strategies are to position us in
relation to our risk exposures in an attempt to capture market opportunities as they arise.
The following table provides a summary of the implied crack spreads for our gasoline crack spread swaps as of December 31,
2015, in our fuel products segment:
Gasoline Crack Spread Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
Barrels Sold
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
873,000
873,000
9,593
$
$
8.98
8.98
83
The following table provides a summary of crude oil swaps as of December 31, 2015, in our fuel products segment:
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
29,120
29,120
29,440
29,440
630,720
747,840
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
320
320
320
320
1,728
$
$
$
$
$
$
44.06
44.06
44.06
44.06
54.94
53.24
The following table provides a summary of crude oil percentage basis swap contracts related to crude oil purchases as of
December 31, 2015, in our fuel products segment:
Crude Oil Percentage Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average percentage
728,000
728,000
736,000
736,000
730,000
3,658,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
2,000
Fixed Percentage
of NYMEX WTI
(Average % of
WTI/Bbl)
73.5%
73.5%
73.5%
73.5%
73.0%
73.4%
We entered into derivative instruments to mitigate the risk of future changes in the price of NYMEX WTI crude oil. The
following table provides a summary of crude oil call option purchases as of December 31, 2015, in our fuel products segment:
Crude Oil Option Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
Average Bought
Call ($/Bbl)
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
350,000
350,000
11,290
$
55.00
$
55.00
We entered into derivative instruments to mitigate the risk of future changes in pricing differentials between LLS and NYMEX
WTI. The following table provides a summary of crude oil basis swap contracts as of December 31, 2015, in our fuel products
segment:
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average differential
182,000
182,000
184,000
184,000
732,000
84
Average
Differential to
NYMEX WTI
($/Bbl)
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
$
$
$
$
$
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
We entered into crude oil basis swaps to mitigate the risk of future changes in pricing differentials between WCS and NYMEX
WTI. The following table provides a summary of crude oil basis swap contracts as of December 31, 2015, in our fuel products
segment:
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average differential
91,000
91,000
92,000
92,000
365,000
731,000
Average
Differential to
NYMEX WTI
($/Bbl)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
(14.10)
(14.10)
(14.10)
(14.10)
(13.70)
(13.90)
The following table provides a summary of natural gas swaps as of December 31, 2015, in our fuel products segment:
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
603,000
603,000
606,000
790,000
2,602,000
$
$
$
$
$
3.01
2.99
3.03
3.02
3.01
The following table provides a summary of natural gas swaps as of December 31, 2015, in our specialty products segment:
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average price
1,580,000
1,380,000
1,380,000
1,540,000
4,950,000
10,830,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.24
4.26
4.26
4.14
3.85
4.05
The following table provides a summary of natural gas collars as of December 31, 2015, in our specialty products segment:
Natural Gas Collars by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
MMBtu
Average Bought
Call ($/MMBtu)
Average Sold Put
($/MMBtu)
180,000
180,000
180,000
60,000
600,000
$
$
$
$
$
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
$
$
$
$
$
3.89
3.89
3.89
3.89
3.89
Please read Note 8 “Derivatives” in the notes to our consolidated financial statements under Part II, Item 8 “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data” for a discussion of the accounting treatment for the various types of derivative instruments,
for a further discussion of our hedging policies and for more information relating to our implied crack spreads of crude oil, diesel,
gasoline and jet fuel derivative instruments.
85
Our derivative instruments and overall specialty products segment and fuel products segment hedging positions are monitored
regularly by our risk management committee, which includes executive officers. The risk management committee reviews market
information and our hedging positions regularly to determine if additional derivatives activity is advised. A summary of derivative
positions and a summary of hedging strategy are presented to our general partner’s board of directors quarterly.
The following table illustrates how a change in market price (holding all other variables constant and excluding the impact
of our current hedges) would affect our sales and cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations:
Specialty Products:
$1.00 change in per barrel price of crude oil (1)
$0.50 change in MMBtu (one million British
Thermal Units) of natural gas (2)
Fuel Products:
$1.00 change in per barrel price of crude oil (1)
$1.00 change in per barrel selling price of gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel (1)
(1) Based on our 2015 and 2014 sales volumes.
Sales
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2015
Cost of Sales
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2015
(In millions)
$
$
$
9.2
6.0
$
$
9.1
6.0
28.2
$
25.7
$
28.2
$
25.7
(2) Based on our results for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.
Revolving Credit Facility
Borrowings under the revolving credit facility are limited to a borrowing base that is determined based on advance rates of
percentages of Eligible Accounts Receivable and Eligible Inventory (as defined in the revolving credit agreement). As such, the
borrowing base can fluctuate based on changes in selling prices of our products and our current material costs, primarily the cost
of crude oil. Our inventory is based on local crude oil prices at period end, which can materially fluctuate period to period.
Pension Assets Volatility and Investment Policy
Our Pension Plan assets are also subject to volatility that can be caused by fluctuation in general economic conditions. Plan
assets are invested by the Plan’s fiduciaries, which direct investments according to specific policies. Our consolidated statement
of operations is currently shielded from volatility in plan assets due to the way accounting standards are applied for pension plans,
although favorable or unfavorable investment performance over the long term will impact our pension expense if it deviates from
our assumption related to the future rate of return. Please read Note 12 “Employee Benefit Plans” under Part II, Item 8 “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data” for a further discussion of our investment policies.
Compliance Price Risk
Renewable Identification Numbers
We are exposed to market risks related to the volatility in the price of credits needed to comply with governmental programs.
The EPA sets annual quotas for the percentage of biofuels that must be blended into transportation fuels consumed in the U.S.,
and as a producer of motor fuels from petroleum, we are required to blend biofuels into the fuel products we produce at a rate that
will meet the EPA’s annual quota. To the extent we are unable to blend biofuels at that rate, we must purchase RINs in the open
market to satisfy the annual requirement. We have not entered into any derivative instruments to manage this risk, but we have
purchased RINs when the price of these instruments is deemed favorable.
Holding other variables constant (RINs requirements), a $1.00 change in the price of RINs as of December 31, 2015, would
be expected to have an impact on net income for 2015 of approximately $125.4 million.
Interest Rate Risk
We use various strategies to reduce our exposure to interest rate risk, including the use of financially settled derivative
instruments, such as interest rate swaps and options, to minimize significant unplanned fluctuations in earnings that are caused by
interest rate volatility. Our goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity by modifying the pricing characteristics of certain debt
instruments so that earnings are not adversely affected by movement in interest rates. During 2014, we entered into an interest rate
swap agreement that converted a portion of our senior notes from a fixed interest rate to a variable rate that fluctuates based on
changes in the one-month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). During the first quarter 2015, we terminated this interest
86
rate swap agreement. We have disclosed this interest rate swap designated as a fair value hedge in Note 8 “Derivatives” under Part
II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Our exposure to interest rate changes is limited to the fair value of the debt issued, which would not have a material impact
on our earnings or cash flows. The following table provides information about the fair value of our fixed rate debt obligations as
of December 31, 2015 and 2014, which we disclose in Note 7 “Long-Term Debt” and Note 9 “Fair Value Measurements” under
Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Financial Instrument:
2020 Notes
2021 Notes
2022 Notes
2023 Notes
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Fair Value
Carrying Value
Fair Value
Carrying Value
$
$
$
$
— $
$
798.3
297.5
294.1
$
$
(In millions)
— $
$
888.0
342.8
317.6
$
$
290.5
803.3
$
$
339.5
$
— $
265.4
885.3
341.2
—
For our variable rate debt, if any, changes in interest rates generally do not impact the fair value of the debt instrument, but
may impact our future earnings and cash flows. We had a $1.0 billion revolving credit facility as of December 31, 2015, with
borrowings bearing interest at the prime rate or LIBOR, at our option, plus the applicable margin. Borrowings under this facility
are variable. We had $111.0 million of variable rate debt as of December 31, 2015. Holding other variables constant (such as debt
levels), a 100 basis point change in interest rates on our variable rate debt as of December 31, 2015, would be expected to have
an impact on net income and cash flows for 2015 of approximately $1.1 million. We had $150.8 million of variable rate debt
outstanding as of December 31, 2014.
Foreign Currency Risk
We have minimal exposure to foreign currency risk and as such the cost of hedging this risk is viewed to be in excess of the
benefit of further reductions in our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations.
87
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The management of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the “Company”) is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process
designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Internal control over financial reporting
includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of the financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management
and directors of the Company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized
acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also,
projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015,
based on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in “Internal Control — Integrated Framework”
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) (“COSO”). Based on this
assessment, we have concluded that internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2015.
Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the Company’s consolidated financial
statements and has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears on
the following page.
February 29, 2016
February 29, 2016
/s/ Timothy Go
Timothy Go
Chief Executive Officer of Calumet GP, LLC, general partner of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (Principal Executive
Officer)
/s/ R. Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
of Calumet GP, LLC (Principal Accounting and Financial
Officer)
88
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of Calumet GP, LLC
General Partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
We have audited Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) (the COSO criteria). Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.’s
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the company’s internal control over financial reporting
based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal
control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating
effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that
(1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation
of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the
company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the company’s
assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also,
projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on the COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
the consolidated balance sheets of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), partners’ capital and cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2015, of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and our report dated February 29, 2016,
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2016
89
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, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), partners’ capital
and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We did not audit the financial statements of Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC a company in which Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. has a 50% interest. In the consolidated financial statements, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P’s investment
in Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC is stated at $124.7 million as of December 31, 2015 and Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P.’s equity in the net loss of Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC is stated at $36.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. Those
statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the 2015
amounts included for Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC, is based solely on the report of the other auditors.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits and the report
of other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. at December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria
established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated February 29, 2016, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2016
90
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable:
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $2.0 million and $1.6 million,
respectively
Other
Inventories
Derivative assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
Property, plant and equipment, net
Investment in unconsolidated affiliates
Goodwill
Other intangible assets, net
Noncurrent deferred income taxes
Other noncurrent assets, net
Total assets
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued interest payable
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
Other taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Current portion of long-term debt
Note payable - related party
Derivative liabilities
Total current liabilities
Noncurrent deferred income taxes
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
Other long-term liabilities
Long-term debt, less current portion
Total liabilities
Commitments and contingencies
Partners’ capital:
Limited partners’ interest (75,884,400 units and 69,452,233 units, issued and
outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively)
General partner’s interest
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Total partners’ capital
Total liabilities and partners’ capital
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
(In millions, except unit data)
$
5.6
$
8.5
195.3
15.4
210.7
384.4
—
8.3
609.0
1,719.2
126.0
212.0
214.1
—
64.4
2,944.7
316.6
31.1
32.9
17.9
119.0
1.7
73.5
33.9
626.6
2.1
13.0
0.9
1,698.2
2,340.8
$
$
578.0
27.5
(1.6)
603.9
2,944.7
$
326.0
23.8
349.8
513.5
23.2
9.2
904.2
1,464.4
137.3
245.8
257.5
2.3
73.6
3,085.1
419.9
37.6
21.9
17.9
40.0
0.6
—
5.6
543.5
32.3
20.0
0.9
1,678.2
2,274.9
765.9
30.6
13.7
810.2
3,085.1
$
$
$
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
91
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
Sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Operating costs and expenses:
Selling
General and administrative
Transportation
Taxes other than income taxes
Asset impairment
Other
Operating income
Other income (expense):
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Other
Total other expense
Net income (loss) before income taxes
Income tax expense (benefit)
Net income (loss)
Allocation of net income (loss):
Net income (loss)
Less:
General partner’s interest in net income (loss)
General partner’s incentive distribution rights
Non-vested share based payments
Net loss available to limited partners
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding:
Basic
Diluted
Limited partners’ interest basic and diluted net loss per unit
Cash distributions declared per limited partner unit
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(In millions, except unit and per unit data)
4,212.8
3,618.2
594.6
5,791.1
5,261.4
529.7
$
146.0
135.5
175.5
17.7
33.8
11.1
75.0
(104.9)
(46.6)
8.1
(39.5)
(61.5)
1.6
(242.8)
(167.8)
(28.4)
(139.4) $
149.6
98.3
171.4
13.4
36.0
14.2
46.8
(110.8)
(89.9)
43.8
(0.6)
(3.4)
1.1
(159.8)
(113.0)
(0.8)
(112.2) $
5,421.4
5,011.4
410.0
62.6
82.1
142.7
14.2
10.5
6.3
91.6
(96.8)
(14.6)
(4.7)
25.7
(0.3)
3.0
(87.7)
3.9
0.4
3.5
(139.4) $
(112.2) $
3.5
(2.8)
16.8
—
(153.4) $
(2.2)
15.4
—
(125.4) $
0.1
14.7
0.2
(11.5)
74,896,096
74,896,096
69,671,827
69,671,827
(2.05) $
$
2.74
(1.80) $
$
2.74
67,938,784
67,938,784
(0.17)
2.70
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
92
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
Net income (loss)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Cash flow hedges:
Cash flow hedge gain reclassified to net income (loss)
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
Defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans
Foreign currency translation adjustment
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
Comprehensive loss attributable to partners’ capital
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
2015
(In millions)
$
(139.4) $
(112.2) $
3.5
(12.1)
(7.3)
4.7
(0.6)
(15.3)
(154.7) $
(37.0)
114.2
(9.6)
(0.5)
67.1
(45.1) $
$
(0.5)
(36.9)
9.6
(0.1)
(27.9)
(24.4)
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
93
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Partners’ Capital
General
Partner
Limited
Partners
Total
(In millions)
Balance at December 31, 2012
Other comprehensive loss
Net income (loss)
Common units repurchased for phantom unit grants
Issuance of phantom units, net of taxes withheld
Amortization of vested phantom units
Proceeds from public offerings of common units, net
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
Distributions to partners
Balance at December 31, 2013
Other comprehensive income
Net income (loss)
Common units repurchased for phantom unit grants
Issuance of phantom units, net of taxes withheld
Cash settlement of unit based compensation
Amortization of vested phantom units
Proceeds from public offerings of common units, net
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
Distributions to partners
Balance at December 31, 2014
Other comprehensive loss
Net income (loss)
Common units repurchased for phantom unit grants
Issuance of phantom units, net of taxes withheld
Reclassification of Liability Awards to equity
Amortization of vested phantom units
Proceeds from public offerings of common units, net
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
Distributions to partners
Balance at December 31, 2015
$
$
$
$
(25.5) $
(27.9)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(53.4) $
67.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$
—
13.7
(15.3)
—
—
—
—
—
—
30.5
—
14.8
—
—
—
—
8.4
(17.1)
36.6
—
13.2
—
—
—
—
—
0.1
(19.3)
30.6
—
14.0
—
—
—
—
—
$
$
—
—
(1.6) $
3.5
(20.6)
27.5
$
$
884.8
$
—
(11.3)
(5.0)
(0.3)
3.2
392.5
889.8
(27.9)
3.5
(5.0)
(0.3)
3.2
392.5
—
(184.3)
1,079.6
$
8.4
(201.4)
1,062.8
—
(125.4)
(2.2)
(1.2)
(0.9)
3.0
3.6
—
(190.6)
765.9
—
(153.4)
(3.6)
(1.5)
7.9
2.4
164.1
—
(203.8)
578.0
$
$
67.1
(112.2)
(2.2)
(1.2)
(0.9)
3.0
3.6
0.1
(209.9)
810.2
(15.3)
(139.4)
(3.6)
(1.5)
7.9
2.4
164.1
3.5
(224.4)
603.9
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
94
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Operating activities
Net income (loss)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
(In millions)
2013
$
(139.4) $
(112.2) $
Depreciation and amortization
Amortization of turnaround costs
Non-cash interest expense
Non-cash debt extinguishment costs
Provision for doubtful accounts
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments
Asset impairment
Loss on disposal of fixed assets
Non-cash equity based compensation
Deferred income tax benefit
Lower of cost or market inventory adjustment
Loss from unconsolidated affiliates
Other non-cash activities
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable
Inventories
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Derivative activity
Turnaround costs
Other assets
Accounts payable
Accrued interest payable
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
Accrued income taxes payable
Other taxes payable
Other liabilities
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
Net cash provided by operating activities
Investing activities
Additions to property, plant and equipment
Investment in unconsolidated affiliates
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
Return of investment from unconsolidated affiliate
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment
Net cash used in investing activities
Financing activities
Proceeds from borrowings — revolving credit facility
Repayments of borrowings — revolving credit facility
Repayments of borrowings — senior notes
Repayments of borrowings — acquisition debt assumed
Proceeds from borrowings — related party
Payments on capital lease obligations
Proceeds from other financing obligations
Proceeds from public offerings of common units, net
Proceeds from senior notes offerings
Debt issuance costs
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
Common units repurchased and taxes paid for phantom unit grants
Cash settlement of unit based compensation
Distributions to partners
Net cash provided by financing activities
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest
Income taxes paid
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities
Non-cash property, plant and equipment additions
Non-cash capital lease
145.4
29.0
6.6
9.1
1.1
39.5
33.8
2.9
9.8
(28.5)
81.8
61.5
5.9
138.0
47.3
3.4
(7.0)
(19.3)
—
(119.9)
(6.5)
10.2
—
0.2
73.8
(2.3)
376.4
(339.3)
(58.6)
—
8.4
0.5
(389.0)
1,390.0
(1,429.8)
(275.0)
—
75.0
(8.0)
1.1
164.1
322.6
(5.6)
3.5
(3.6)
—
(224.6)
9.7
(2.9)
8.5
5.6
120.6
1.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
138.6
24.5
6.4
19.0
0.5
0.6
36.0
4.8
6.5
(1.2)
74.1
3.4
0.7
(0.4)
43.9
3.9
6.7
(27.6)
—
(13.1)
15.1
(14.7)
—
(1.1)
13.7
(1.3)
226.8
(289.9)
(105.4)
(263.6)
—
0.1
(658.8)
1,625.1
(1,474.3)
(500.0)
—
—
(1.9)
—
3.6
900.0
(19.9)
0.1
(2.2)
(0.9)
(210.2)
319.4
(112.6)
121.1
8.5
107.8
0.5
39.9
39.4
$
$
$
$
$
3.5
117.8
15.9
7.0
3.4
0.1
(25.7)
10.5
15.2
4.8
—
(2.1)
0.3
(10.2)
(32.3)
16.4
6.8
(1.8)
(68.6)
(0.1)
6.8
(1.0)
(7.1)
(27.6)
3.0
6.8
(2.7)
39.1
(160.8)
(31.8)
(177.7)
—
—
(370.3)
865.6
(865.6)
(100.0)
(11.9)
—
(1.1)
3.5
392.5
344.7
(7.3)
8.4
(7.1)
—
(201.6)
420.1
88.9
32.2
121.1
91.4
29.8
13.1
—
$
$
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
56.5
4.4
$
$
95
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Description of the Business
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the “Company”) is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership listed on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbol “CLMT.” The general partner of the Company is Calumet
GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had 75,884,400 limited partner common
units and 1,548,660 general partner equivalent units outstanding. The general partner owns 2% of the Company and all of the
incentive distribution rights (as defined in the Company’s partnership agreement), while the remaining 98% is owned by limited
partners. The general partner employs all of the Company’s employees and the Company reimburses the general partner for certain
of its expenses.
The Company is engaged in the production and marketing of crude oil-based specialty products including lubricating oils,
white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums, waxes, and fuel and fuel related products including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt and
heavy fuel oils, in addition to oilfield services and products. The Company is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and owns specialty
and fuel products facilities. The Company owns and leases oilfield services locations and leases additional facilities, primarily
related to production and distribution of specialty, fuel and oilfield services products, throughout the United States (“U.S.”).
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements reflect the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries. All intercompany profits, transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Reclassifications
Certain amounts in the prior years’ consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current year
presentation.
Use of Estimates
The Company’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles (“U.S. GAAP”) 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 consolidated 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 include all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase.
Accounts Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of customers’ financial condition and generally does not require collateral.
Accounts receivable are carried at their face amounts. 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 experience, the age of the accounts receivable balances, credit quality of the Company’s
customers, current economic conditions, expected future trends and other factors that may affect customers’ ability to pay. Individual
accounts are written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts after all reasonable collection efforts have been exhausted.
The activity in the allowance for doubtful accounts was as follows (in millions):
Beginning balance
Provision
Write-offs, net
Ending balance
Inventories
2015
December 31,
2014
2013
$
$
1.6
1.1
(0.7)
2.0
$
$
1.2
0.5
(0.1)
1.6
$
$
1.2
0.1
(0.1)
1.2
The cost of inventory is recorded 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. The replacement
cost of these inventories, based on current market values, would have been $41.0 million lower and $18.9 million lower as of
96
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had $1.4 million and $1.7 million,
respectively, of consigned inventory.
Inventories consisted of the following (in millions):
Raw materials
Work in process
Finished goods
December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
47.9
64.0
272.5
384.4
$
$
77.8
75.4
360.3
513.5
Under the LIFO method, the most recently incurred costs are charged to cost of sales and inventories are valued at the earliest
acquisition costs. For each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded gains and (losses) of
$(24.3) million, $(26.5) million and $4.2 million, respectively, in cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations due to
the liquidation of inventory layers.
In addition, the use of the LIFO inventory method may result in increases or decreases to cost of sales in years that inventory
volumes decline as the result of charging cost of sales with LIFO inventory costs generated in prior periods. In periods of rapidly
declining prices, LIFO inventories may have to be written down to market value due to the higher costs assigned to LIFO layers
in prior periods. Such write downs are subject to reversal in subsequent periods, not to exceed LIFO cost, if prices recover. During
the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 the Company recorded $81.8 million and $74.1 million, respectively, of losses in
cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations due to the lower of cost or market valuation. During the year ended
December 31, 2013, the Company recorded $2.1 million of gains in cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations due
to the lower of cost or market valuation.
Derivatives
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of numerous commodities, such as crude oil (its principal raw material)
and natural gas, as well as the sales prices of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Given the historical volatility of commodity prices, these
fluctuations can significantly impact sales, gross profit and net income. Therefore, the Company utilizes derivative instruments
primarily to minimize its price risk and volatility of cash flows associated with the purchase of crude oil and natural gas and the
sale of fuel products. The Company employs various hedging strategies and does not hold or issue derivative instruments for
trading purposes. For further information, please refer to Note 8.
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. Assets under capital leases are amortized over
the lesser of the useful life of the asset or the term of the lease.
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives, consisted of the following (in millions):
Land
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
Assets under capital leases (4 to 26 years)
Construction-in-progress
Less accumulated depreciation
December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
19.5
70.2
1,629.7
28.5
49.0
466.4
2,263.3
(544.1)
1,719.2
$
$
18.3
66.8
1,420.7
21.8
48.9
354.0
1,930.5
(466.1)
1,464.4
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.
97
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
During 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company incurred $133.5 million, $122.8 million and $101.2 million, respectively, of
interest expense of which $28.6 million, $12.0 million and $4.4 million, respectively, was capitalized as a component of property,
plant and equipment.
The Company has not recorded an asset retirement obligation as of December 31, 2015 or 2014 because such potential
obligations cannot be measured since it is not possible to estimate the settlement dates.
During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded $102.0 million, $98.3 million and $92.0
million, respectively, of depreciation expense on its property, plant and equipment. Depreciation expense included $2.6 million,
$0.8 million and $0.7 million for the years ended 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, related to the Company’s capital lease assets.
The Company capitalizes the cost of computer software developed or obtained for internal use. Capitalized software is
amortized using the straight-line method over five years. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had $17.4 million and
$17.4 million, respectively, of capitalized software costs. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had $13.1 million and
$8.9 million, respectively of accumulated depreciation related to the capitalized software costs. During the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded $4.2 million, $3.4 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, of amortization
expense on capitalized computer software. Capitalized software is included in furniture and fixtures.
Investment in Unconsolidated Affiliates
The Company accounts for its ownership in its Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC and Juniper GTL LLC joint ventures in
accordance with ASC 323, Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures. The equity method of accounting is applied when
the investor has an ownership interest of less than 50% and/or has significant influence over the operating or financial decisions
of the investee. Under the equity method, the Company’s proportionate share of net income (loss) is reflected as a single-line item
in the consolidated statements of operations and as increases or decreases, as applicable, in the carrying value of the Company’s
investment in the consolidated balance sheets. In addition, the proportionate share of net income (loss) is reflected as a non-cash
activity in operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows. Contributions increase the carrying value of the
investment and are reflected as an investing activity in the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Equity method investments are assessed for other-than-temporary impairment when the investment generates net losses. The
Company recorded a $24.3 million impairment charge in loss from unconsolidated affiliates in the consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. No impairment was recognized in 2014 and 2013. For further information on
investment in unconsolidated affiliates, refer to Note 4.
Goodwill and Indefinite Lived Intangible Assets
Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over fair value of the net assets acquired in various acquisitions. See Note
3 for more information. The Company reviews goodwill for impairment annually on October 1 and whenever events or changes
in circumstances indicate its carrying value may not be recoverable in accordance with ASC 350, Intangibles — Goodwill and
Other (Topic 350): Testing Goodwill for Impairment (“ASU 2011-08”). Under ASU 2011-08, an entity has the option to first assess
qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely
than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances,
an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then
performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary.
In assessing the qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is
less than its carrying amount, the Company assesses relevant events and circumstances that may impact the fair value and the
carrying amount of the reporting unit. The identification of relevant events and circumstances and how these may impact a reporting
unit’s fair value or carrying amount involve significant judgment and assumptions. The judgment and assumptions include the
identification of macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance and
Company specific events and making the assessment on whether each relevant factor will impact the impairment test positively
or negatively and the magnitude of any such impact.
If the Company’s qualitative assessment concludes that it is probable that an impairment exists or the Company skips the
qualitative assessment then the Company needs to perform a quantitative assessment. In the first step of the quantitative assessment,
the Company’s assets and liabilities, including existing goodwill and other intangible assets, are assigned to the identified reporting
units to determine the carrying value of the reporting units. If the carrying value of a reporting unit is in excess of its fair value,
an impairment may exist, and the Company must perform an impairment analysis, in which the implied fair value of the goodwill
is compared to its carrying value to determine the impairment charge, if any.
When performing the quantitative assessment, the fair value of the reporting units is determined using the income approach.
The income approach focuses on the income-producing capability of an asset, measuring the current value of the asset by calculating
98
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
the present value of its future economic benefits such as cash earnings, cost savings, corporate tax structure and product offerings.
Value indications are developed by discounting expected cash flows to their present value at a rate of return that incorporates the
risk-free rate for the use of funds, the expected rate of inflation, and risks associated with the reporting unit.
Intangible assets with an indefinite life are not amortized but are subject to review each reporting period to determine whether
events and circumstances continue to support an indefinite useful life as well as an annual impairment test.
Due to the continued decline in crude oil prices, the Company updated its goodwill impairment analysis as of September
30, 2015, resulting in the fair value of one reporting unit to be less than its carrying value. An impairment charge of $33.8 million
was recorded on goodwill as a result of this step 2 analysis. An impairment charge of $36.0 million was recorded on goodwill in
2014. No impairment was recognized on goodwill in 2013 based upon the quantitative and qualitative assessments.
Definite Lived Intangible Assets
Definite lived intangible assets consist of intangible assets associated with customer relationships, supplier agreements,
tradenames, trade secrets, patents, non-competition agreements, distributor agreements and royalty agreements that were acquired
in various acquisitions. The majority of these assets are being amortized using discounted estimated future cash flows over the
term of the related agreements. Intangible assets associated with customer relationships are being amortized using the discounted
estimated future cash flows method based upon assumed rates of annual customer attrition. For more information, refer to Note
5.
Other Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets include turnaround costs. Turnaround costs represent capitalized costs associated with the Company’s
periodic major maintenance and repairs and were $60.4 million and $70.1 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company capitalizes these costs and amortizes the costs on a straight-line basis over the lives of the turnaround assets. These
amounts are net of accumulated amortization of $71.6 million and $46.2 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Other Current Liabilities
Other current liabilities consisted of the following at December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
RINs Obligation
Other
Total
December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
88.4
30.6
119.0
$
$
16.3
23.7
40.0
The Company’s Renewable Identification Numbers obligation (“RINs Obligation”) represents a liability for the purchase
of RINs to satisfy the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requirement to blend biofuels into the fuel products it
produces pursuant to the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”). RINs are assigned to biofuels produced in the U.S. as required
by the EPA. The EPA sets annual quotas for the percentage of biofuels that must be blended into transportation fuels consumed in
the U.S., and as a producer of motor fuels from petroleum, the Company is required to blend biofuels into the fuel products it
produces at a rate that will meet the EPA’s annual quota. To the extent the Company is unable to blend biofuels at that rate, it must
purchase RINs in the open market to satisfy the annual requirement. The Company’s RINs Obligation is based on the amount of
RINs it must purchase and the price of those RINs as of the balance sheet date. The Company uses the inventory model to account
for RINs, measuring acquired RINs at weighted-average cost. The cost of RINs used each period is charged to cost of sales with
cash inflows and outflows recorded in the operating cash flow section of the consolidated statements of cash flows. Excess RINs
are classified as inventory in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognizes a liability at the end of each reporting
period in which the Company does not have sufficient RINs to cover the RINs Obligation. The liability is calculated by multiplying
the RINs shortage (based on actual results) by the period end RIN spot price.
From time to time, the Company holds varying amounts of RINs for resale. RINs obtained from third parties are initially
recorded at their cost at the time the Company acquires them and are subsequently revalued at the lower of cost or market as of
the last day of each accounting period and the resulting adjustments are reflected in costs of goods sold for the period. The value
of RINs obtained from third parties would be reflected in prepaid expenses and other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.
99
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
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 such an 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 value of the long-lived asset. Fair value is determined primarily using
anticipated cash flows assumed by a market participant 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.
During 2013, the Company recorded write-downs related to idle fixed assets within its specialty products segment. The non-
cash charges of $10.5 million were recorded in asset impairment on the consolidated statements of operations and loss on disposal
of fixed assets in the consolidated statements of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2013. No impairments of long-lived
assets were recorded in 2015 and 2014.
Business Combinations and Related Business Acquisition Costs
Assets and liabilities associated with business acquisitions are recorded at fair value, using the acquisition method of
accounting. The Company allocates the purchase price of acquisitions based upon the fair value of each component, which may
be derived from various observable or unobservable inputs and assumptions. The Company may utilize third-party valuation
specialists to assist the Company in this allocation. Initial purchase price allocations are preliminary and subject to revision within
the measurement period, not to exceed one year from the date of acquisition. The fair value of the property, plant and equipment
and intangible assets are based upon the discounted cash flow method that involves inputs that are not observable in the market
(Level 3). Goodwill assigned represents the amount of consideration transferred in excess of the fair value assigned to identifiable
assets acquired and liabilities assumed.
Business acquisition costs are expensed as incurred, and are reported as general and administrative expenses in the consolidated
statements of operations. The Company defines these costs to include finder’s fees, advisory, legal, accounting, valuation, and
other professional or consulting fees, as well as travel associated with the evaluation and effort to acquire specific businesses. For
further information, refer to Note 3.
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 Company’s normal billing and credit terms, all
of the Company’s obligations related to the product have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have been transferred
to the buyer, which is primarily upon shipment to the customer or, in certain cases, upon receipt by the customer in accordance
with contractual terms. The Company recognizes revenue on certain drilling fluids and completion fluids when consumed at the
customer site during the drilling process.
Concentrations of Credit Risk
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and in some instances requires cash
in advance or letters of credit prior to shipment for domestic orders. For international orders, letters of credit are generally required
and the Company maintains insurance policies which cover certain export orders. The Company maintains an allowance for
doubtful customer accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability of its customers to make required payments. The
allowance for doubtful accounts is developed based on several factors including historical experience, the age of the accounts
receivable balances, credit quality of the Company’s customers, current economic conditions, expected future trends and other
factors that may affect customers’ ability to pay, which exist as of the balance sheet dates. If the financial condition of the Company’s
customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional allowances may be required.
In addition, from time to time the Company has significant derivative assets with a limited number of counterparties. The evaluation
of these counterparties is performed quarterly in connection with the Company’s ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures, valuations to determine the impact of the counterparty credit risk on the valuation of its derivative instruments.
Income Taxes
The Company, as a partnership, is generally not liable for federal and state income taxes on the earnings of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. However, the Company conducts certain activities through wholly-
owned subsidiaries that are corporations, which in certain circumstances are subject to federal, state and local income taxes.
Additionally, the Company is subject to franchise taxes in certain states. Income taxes on the earnings of the Company, with the
100
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
exception of the above mentioned taxes, are the responsibility of its partners, with earnings of the Company included in partners’
earnings.
In the event that the Company’s taxable income does not meet certain qualification requirements, the Company would be
taxed as a corporation. Interest and penalties related to income taxes, if any, would be recorded in income tax expense. Generally,
tax returns remain subject to examination by taxing authorities for three years. The Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as
of December 31, 2015 and 2014.
The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method. Under this method, deferred tax assets and
liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement
carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured
using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The
effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rate is recognized in earnings in the period that includes the enactment
date. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amounts more likely than not to be
realized.
The determination of the provision for income taxes requires significant judgment, use of estimates, and the interpretation
and application of complex tax laws. Significant judgment is required in assessing the timing and amounts of deductible and taxable
items and the probability of sustaining uncertain tax positions. The benefits of uncertain tax positions are recorded in the Company’s
financial statements only after determining a more-likely-than-not probability that the uncertain tax positions will withstand
challenge, if any, from taxing authorities. When facts and circumstances change, the Company reassesses these probabilities and
records any changes through the provision for income taxes.
Excise and Sales Taxes
The Company assesses, collects and remits excise taxes associated with the sale of certain of its fuel products. Furthermore,
the Company collects and remits sales taxes associated with certain sales of its products to non-exempt customers. Excise taxes
and sales taxes assessed and collected from customers are recorded on a net basis within sales in the Company’s consolidated
statements of operations.
Earnings per Unit
The Company calculates earnings per unit under ASC 260-10, Earnings per Share. The Company treats incentive distribution
rights (“IDRs”) as participating securities for the purposes of computing earnings per unit in the period that the general partner
becomes contractually obligated to receive IDRs. Also, the undistributed earnings are allocated to the partnership interests based
on the allocation of earnings to the Company’s partners’ capital accounts as specified in the Company’s partnership agreement.
When distributions exceed earnings, net income is reduced by the actual distributions with the resulting net loss being allocated
to capital accounts as specified in the Company’s partnership agreement.
Unit Based Compensation
For unit based compensation awards granted, compensation expense is recognized in the Company’s consolidated financial
statements on a straight line basis over the awards’ vesting periods based on their fair values on the dates of grant. The unit based
compensation awards vest over a period not exceeding four years. The amount of compensation expense recognized at any date
is at least equal to the portion of the grant date value of the award that is vested at that date.
Unit based compensation liability awards are awards that are expected to be settled in cash on their vesting dates, rather than
in equity units (“Liability Awards”). Liability Awards are recorded in accrued salaries, wages and benefits based on the vested
portion of the fair value of the awards on the balance sheet date. The fair values of Liability Awards are updated at each balance
sheet date and changes in the fair values of the vested portions of the awards are recorded as increases or decreases to compensation
expense. See Note 11 for more information on Liability Awards.
Shipping and Handling Costs
The Company complies with ASC 605-45, Revenue Recognition — Principal Agent Considerations. ASC 605-45 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 to be disclosed if classified elsewhere. The Company has reflected $175.5 million, $171.4 million and
$142.7 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, in transportation expense in the consolidated
statements of operations, the majority of which is billed to customers.
101
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Advertising Expenses
The Company expenses advertising costs as incurred which totaled $14.2 million, $20.5 million and $14.6 million in 2015,
2014 and 2013, respectively. Advertising expenses are reported as selling expenses in the consolidated statements of operations.
Foreign Currency Translation and Transactions
Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries use a local currency as their functional currency. Assets and liabilities of subsidiaries
with a local currency as their functional currency are translated at period-end rates of exchange, and revenues and expenses are
translated at average exchange rates prevailing for each month. The resulting translation adjustments are made directly to a separate
component of other comprehensive income (loss), which is reflected in partners’ capital in the Company’s consolidated balance
sheets.
Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries also enter into transactions and have monetary assets and liabilities that are denominated
in a currency other than such entity’s respective functional currency. Gains and losses from the revaluation of foreign currency
transactions and monetary assets and liabilities are included in other income (expense) in the consolidated statements of operations.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In January 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No.
2016-01, Financial Instruments — Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities (“ASU 2016-01”). ASU 2016-01 requires that (i) equity investments in unconsolidated entities that are not accounted
for under the equity method of accounting generally be measured at fair value with changes recognized in net income and (ii)
when the fair value option has been elected for financial liabilities, changes in fair value due to instrument-specific credit risk be
recognized separately in other comprehensive income. Additionally, ASU 2016-01 changes the presentation and disclosure
requirements for financial instruments. The amendments in this standard are effective for fiscal years (including interim periods)
beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this
standard on its consolidated financial statements.
In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred
Taxes (“ASU 2015-17”). ASU 2015-17 requires that businesses classify deferred tax liabilities and assets on their balance sheets
as noncurrent. Under existing accounting, a business must separate deferred income tax liabilities and assets into current and
noncurrent. The amendments in this standard may be applied retrospectively or prospectively and are effective for fiscal years
(including interim periods) beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. The Company adopted ASU 2015-17
retrospectively, which resulted in the Company reclassifying approximately $2.3 million, as of December 31, 2014, of deferred
income taxes from current assets to noncurrent deferred income taxes in the consolidated balance sheets.
In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-16, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Simplifying the Accounting
for Measurement-Period Adjustments (“ASU 2015-16”). ASU 2015-16 requires that an acquirer recognize adjustments to
provisional amounts that are identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts
are determined. The amendments in this standard are effective prospectively for fiscal years (including interim periods) beginning
after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2015-16 is not expected to have an impact on the
Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In June 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-10, Technical Corrections and Improvements (“ASU 2015-10”). With regard
to fair value measurement disclosures, ASU 2015-10 clarified that, for nonrecurring measurements estimated at a date during the
reporting period other than the end of the reporting period, an entity should clearly indicate that the fair value information presented
is not as of the period’s end as well as the date or period that the measurement was taken. The Company adopted ASU 2015-10,
effective June 12, 2015, as the change was effective upon issuance. The adoption did not have an impact on the Company’s
consolidated financial statements.
In May 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-08, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Pushdown Accounting — Amendments
to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to Staff Bulletin No. 115 (“ASU 2015-08”). The amendments in ASU 2015-08 amend various SEC
paragraphs included in the FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification to reflect the issuance of Staff Accounting Bulletin No.
115 (“SAB 115”). SAB 115 rescinds portions of the interpretive guidance included in the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletins series
and brings existing guidance into conformity with ASU No. 2014-17, “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Pushdown Accounting,”
which provides an acquired entity with an option to apply pushdown accounting in its separate financial statements upon occurrence
of an event in which an acquirer obtains control of the acquired entity. The Company adopted the amendments in ASU 2015-08,
effective May 8, 2015, as the amendments in the update are effective upon issuance. The adoption did not have an impact on the
Company’s consolidated financial statements.
102
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
In May 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosures for Investments in
Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent) (“ASU 2015-07”). ASU 2015-07 provides guidance
that amends the required disclosure of investments for which fair value is measured at net asset value (“NAV”) per share (or its
equivalent). The amendments remove the requirement to make certain disclosures for all investments that are eligible to be measured
at fair value using the NAV per share practical expedient. ASU 2015-07 is effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods)
beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2015-07 should be applied retrospectively. The adoption
of ASU 2015-07 is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-06, Earnings per Share (Topic 260): Effects on Historical Earnings per Unit
of Master Limited Partnership Dropdown Transactions (“ASU 2015-06”). ASU 2015-06 provides guidance for calculating
historical earnings per unit under the two-class method, stating that the earnings or losses of a transferred business before the date
of a dropdown transaction should be allocated entirely to the general partner interest. ASU 2015-06 is effective for fiscal periods
(including interim periods) beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2015-06 should be applied
retrospectively. The adoption of ASU 2015-06 is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other — Internal-Use Software (Subtopic
350-40): Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement (“ASU 2015-05”). ASU 2015-05 provides
guidance to determine whether a cloud computing agreement includes a software license or should be considered as a service
agreement. ASU 2015-05 is effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods) beginning after December 15, 2015, with early
adoption permitted. An entity can elect to adopt the amendments either (1) prospectively to all arrangements entered into or
materially modified after the effective date or (2) retrospectively. The adoption of ASU 2015-05 is not expected to have an impact
on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-04, Compensation — Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Practical Expedient
for the Measurement Date of an Employer’s Defined Benefit Obligation and Plan Assets (“ASU 2015-04”). ASU 2015-04 provides
guidance for the measuring of assets in defined benefit pension plans and other retirement plans if they are on fiscal years that do
not end on the last day of a month. ASU 2015-04 is effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods) beginning after December
15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2015-04 is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s
consolidated financial statements.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, Interest — Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the
Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs (“ASU 2015-03”). ASU 2015-03 requires debt issuance costs to be recognized in the balance
sheet as a direct deduction from the related debt liability rather than as an asset. ASU 2015-03 also requires the amortization of
debt issuance costs to be reported as interest expense. ASU 2015-03 is effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods)
beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2015-03 must be applied retrospectively, where the
balance sheet of each presented individual period is adjusted to indicate the period-specific impact of using the new guidance. In
August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-15, Interest — Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Presentation and Subsequent
Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements (“ASU 2015-15”), which states that an entity
can defer and present debt issuance costs as an asset and subsequently amortize the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the
term of the line-of-credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangement.
The Company adopted ASU 2015-03, which resulted in the Company reclassifying approximately $34.7 million, as of December 31,
2014, of deferred debt issuance costs from other noncurrent assets to long-term debt in the consolidated balance sheets.
In February 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810): Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis
(“ASU 2015-02”). ASU 2015-02 amends the analysis that a reporting entity must perform to determine whether it should consolidate
certain types of legal entities. ASU 2015-02 is effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods) beginning after December
15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2015-02 is not expected to have an impact on the Company’s
consolidated financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”),
which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Accounting Standards Codification 605, Revenue Recognition. ASU
2014-09 is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount
that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 also
requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer
contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill
a contract. ASU 2014-09 was originally effective for fiscal periods (including interim periods) beginning after December 15, 2016.
In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective
Date, which defers the effective date by one year, with early adoption permitted as of the original effective date. ASU 2014-09
103
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
allows for either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective transition method. The Company is currently evaluating the impact
of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.
3. Acquisitions
On August 1, 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of privately-held Specialty
Oilfield Solutions, Ltd. (“SOS”) for aggregate consideration of approximately $29.6 million, net of cash acquired (the “SOS
Acquisition”). SOS is a full-service drilling fluids and solids control company with operations in the Eagle Ford, Marcellus and
Utica shale formations. The SOS Acquisition was financed with borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facility. The
Company believes the SOS Acquisition increases its sales into the oilfield services market, expands its geographic reach and
increases its asset diversity.
On March 31, 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of the capital stock of ADF Holdings, Inc., the parent
company of Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. (“Anchor”), an independent provider and marketer of drilling fluids and completion
fluids to the oil and gas exploration industry (the “Anchor Acquisition”). Total consideration was approximately $223.6 million,
net of cash acquired. In connection with the Anchor Acquisition, the Company is required to pay the sellers 50% of the amount
of taxes paid in a post-closing tax period that are reduced (or a refund is actually received or credited) as a result of the utilization
of post-closing transaction tax deductions in the 2014 taxable year (but, for the avoidance of doubt, no other taxable year), which
is estimated to be $1.1 million as of December 31, 2015. Anchor designs, manufactures and packages drilling fluid products at its
locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Anchor Acquisition was financed by using a portion of the net proceeds of approximately $884.0
million from the Company’s March 2014 private placement of 6.50% Senior Notes due 2021. The Company believes the Anchor
Acquisition further expands its specialty products offering, increases its sales into the oilfield services market, expands its
geographic reach and increases its asset diversity.
On February 28, 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of United Petroleum, LLC
(“United Petroleum”), a marketer and distributor of high performance lubricants, for aggregate consideration of approximately
$10.4 million, (the “United Petroleum Acquisition”). The United Petroleum Acquisition was financed with cash on hand. The
Company believes the United Petroleum Acquisition increases its position in the specialty lubricants market.
On December 10, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of the membership interests of Bel-Ray Company,
LLC (“Bel-Ray”), a manufacturer and global distributor of high-performance lubricants and greases, for aggregate consideration
of approximately $53.6 million, net of cash acquired and excluding debt assumed (“Bel-Ray Acquisition”). Bel-Ray distributes,
both domestically and internationally, a wide array of high-end specialty synthetic lubricants and greases which are used in the
aerospace, automotive, energy, food, marine, military, mining, motorcycle, powersports, steel and textiles industries. The Bel-Ray
Acquisition was financed by using a portion of the net proceeds of $337.4 million from the Company’s November 2013 private
placement of 7.625% senior notes due January 15, 2022. The Company believes the Bel-Ray Acquisition increases its position in
the specialty lubricants market, expands its geographic reach and increases its asset diversity. At closing, the Company repaid the
$11.9 million of debt assumed in connection with the Bel-Ray Acquisition.
On August 9, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of seven crude oil loading facilities and related assets in North
Dakota and Montana from Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (“Murphy”) for aggregate consideration of approximately $6.2 million (“Crude
Oil Logistics Acquisition”). The Crude Oil Logistics Acquisition was funded with cash on hand. As part of this acquisition, the
Company assumed pipeline space on the Enbridge Pipeline System (“Enbridge Pipeline”) previously held by Murphy. The Company
has the ability to transport crude oil directly from the point of lease, into the Company’s acquired crude oil loading facilities and
then onto the Enbridge Pipeline where it can be routed to the Company’s Superior refinery and/or third party customers. As part
of this transaction, the Company and Murphy jointly consented to terminate an existing crude oil purchase agreement wherein
Murphy supplied the Company’s Superior refinery with up to 10,000 bpd of crude oil. The Company believes this acquisition
expands its growing portfolio of crude oil logistics assets, while positioning the Company to purchase increased volumes of price-
advantaged feedstock directly from the producers that operate in the major shale oil plays encompassing certain of the Company’s
refineries.
On January 2, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of NuStar Energy L.P.’s (“NuStar”) San Antonio, Texas, refinery,
together with related assets and the assumption of certain liabilities and obligations (“San Antonio Acquisition”). Total consideration
for the San Antonio Acquisition was approximately $117.9 million, net of cash acquired. The refinery has total crude oil throughput
capacity of 21,000 bpd and primarily produces diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, other fuel products and solvents. The San Antonio
Acquisition was funded with borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facility with the balance through cash on hand.
The Company believes the San Antonio Acquisition further diversifies the Company’s crude oil feedstock slate, operating asset
base and geographic presence.
104
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Purchase Price Allocation
The assets and results of the operations from such assets acquired as a result of the San Antonio and Crude Oil Logistics
Acquisitions have been included in the fuel products segments since their dates of acquisition, January 2, 2013, and August 9,
2013, respectively. The assets and results of operations from such assets acquired as a result of the Bel-Ray and United Petroleum
Acquisitions have been included in the specialty products segment since their dates of acquisition, December 10, 2013, and February
28, 2014, respectively. The assets and results of operations from such assets acquired as a result of the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions
have been included in the oilfield services segment since their dates of acquisition, March 31, 2014, and August 1, 2014, respectively.
The allocations of the aggregate purchase prices to assets acquired and liabilities assumed for acquisitions are as follows (in
millions):
2014 Acquisitions
2013 Acquisitions
SOS
Anchor
United
Petroleum
Bel-Ray
Crude Oil
Logistics
San Antonio
$
11.6
$
$
— $
4.3
$
— $
Accounts receivable
Inventories
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Deposits
Deferred tax asset
Property, plant and equipment, net
Investment in unconsolidated affiliates
Goodwill
Other intangible assets, net
Other noncurrent assets, net
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
Accrued income taxes payable
Other taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Current portion of long-term debt
Long-term debt
Deferred income tax liability
Other long-term liabilities
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
Total purchase price, net of cash acquired
$
75.0
61.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
35.9
1.9
69.0
74.0
—
(44.2)
(18.2)
—
(1.8)
(0.4)
—
—
(30.7)
—
—
223.6
0.2
—
—
—
—
—
5.0
5.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.4
$
$
11.1
0.6
—
—
6.5
—
9.1
41.4
0.3
(3.9)
(1.3)
—
(1.7)
(0.8)
(11.9)
—
—
(0.1)
—
53.6
$
—
0.1
—
—
0.9
—
5.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.2
—
17.0
—
—
—
100.7
—
5.7
—
—
—
(0.1)
—
—
(5.4)
—
—
—
—
—
117.9
$
2.7
0.1
—
—
15.1
—
0.8
5.7
—
(6.2)
—
—
(0.2)
—
—
—
—
—
—
29.6
$
105
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Intangible Assets
The components of intangible assets listed in the table above were as follows (in millions):
SOS
Anchor
United Petroleum
Bel-Ray
August 1, 2014
March 31, 2014
February 28, 2014
December 10, 2013
Amount
Life
(Years)
Amount
Life
(Years)
Amount
Life
(Years)
Amount
$
$
4.3
1.4
—
—
5.7
52.7
18.4
—
2.9
74.0
15 $
20
—
—
16
$
3.8
1.4
—
—
5.2
20 $
21
—
2
20
$
20 $
28.6
4.2
8.5
0.1
41.4
$
20
—
—
20
Life
(Years)
30
18
18
3
26
Customer relationships
Tradenames
Trade secrets
Non-competition agreements
Totals
Weighted average amortization
period
Goodwill
The Company recorded the following goodwill (in millions):
SOS Acquisition (1)
Anchor Acquisition (1) (3)
United Petroleum Acquisition (1)
Bel-Ray Acquisition (1)
Crude Oil Logistics Acquisition (2)
San Antonio Acquisition (1)
Amount
0.8
69.0
5.0
9.1
5.2
5.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
Business Segment
Oilfield Services
Oilfield Services
Specialty Products
Specialty Products
Fuel Products
Fuel Products
(1) Goodwill recognized relates primarily to enhancing the Company’s strategic platform for expansion in the respective business
segment noted above.
(2) Goodwill recognized relates primarily to enhancing the Company’s crude oil gathering operations to support the Superior
refinery and sales to third party customers.
(3) Approximately $9.7 million of goodwill associated with the Anchor Acquisition is tax deductible due to Anchor’s tax status
as a corporation on the acquisition date.
Acquisition Expenses
In connection with the respective acquisitions, the Company incurred the following expenses, which are reflected in general
and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013
(in millions):
SOS Acquisition
Anchor Acquisition
United Petroleum Acquisition
Bel-Ray Acquisition
Crude Oil Logistics Acquisition
San Antonio Acquisition
Montana Acquisition
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
— $
— $
— $
— $
— $
— $
— $
0.1
0.6
0.1
$
$
$
0.3
$
— $
— $
— $
—
—
—
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
106
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Results of Sales and Earnings
The following financial information reflects sales and operating income (loss) of the Anchor Acquisition that are included
in the consolidated statements of operations (in millions):
Sales
Operating loss
Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Information
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
$
$
259.8
$
(74.5) $
349.1
$
(19.1) $
—
—
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the unaudited consolidated results of operations of the
Company as if the Anchor Acquisition had taken place on January 1, 2014, (in millions, except for per unit data):
Sales
Net loss
Limited partners’ interest basic and diluted net loss per unit
Year Ended
December 31, 2014
5,873.6
$
(124.6)
(1.97)
$
$
The Company’s historical financial information was adjusted to give effect to the pro forma events that were directly
attributable to the Anchor Acquisition. This unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented for illustrative purposes
only and is not necessarily indicative of results of operations that would have been achieved had the pro forma events taken place
on the dates indicated, or the future consolidated results of operations of the combined company.
4. Investment in Unconsolidated Affiliates
The following table summarizes the Company’s investments in unconsolidated affiliates for the years ended of December 31,
2015 and 2014 (in millions):
Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC
Juniper GTL LLC
Other
Total
Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC
Year Ended December 31, 2015
Year Ended December 31, 2014
Investment
Percent
Ownership
Investment
Percent
Ownership
$
$
124.7
—
1.3
126.0
50% $
—%
$
117.2
18.5
1.6
137.3
50%
23%
On February 7, 2013, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with MDU Resources Group, Inc. (“MDU”) to
develop, build and operate a diesel refinery in southwestern North Dakota. The joint venture is named Dakota Prairie Refining,
LLC (“Dakota Prairie”). The capitalization of the construction cost was funded through cash contributions from MDU, cash
contributions from the Company and proceeds of $75.0 million from a syndicated term loan facility with the joint venture as the
borrower, which is expected to be repaid by the Company through its allocation of profits from the joint venture. The term loan
facility was funded in April 2013. In addition to the $300.0 million commitment outlined in the joint venture agreement, MDU
and the Company made additional cash contributions, net of distributions, in the amount of $80.4 million and $88.6 million,
respectively, to fund construction costs and working capital needs. Additionally, MDU and the Company may make cash
contributions to fund working capital needs. The joint venture allocates profits on a 50%/50% basis to the Company and MDU,
except for the adjustments made to the Company’s share for repayment of the principal and interest of the $75.0 million term loan
as noted above. The joint venture is governed by a board of managers comprised of representatives from both the Company and
MDU. MDU is providing natural gas and electricity utility services to the joint venture. The Company is providing refinery
operations, crude oil procurement and refined product marketing expertise to the joint venture. Dakota Prairie commenced sales
of finished products in May 2015.
On September 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with MDU and Dakota Prairie, under which Dakota Prairie
can borrow up to $25.0 million from each of the Company and MDU through June 30, 2016, (the “Subordinated Loan”). The
107
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Subordinated Loan is subordinated in right of payment to Dakota Prairie’s obligations under its revolving credit facility pursuant
to the terms of a Subordination Agreement between the Company, MDU, Dakota Prairie and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
representative of the lenders under the revolving credit facility. As of December 31, 2015, there are no amounts outstanding under
the Subordinated Loan.
On September 30, 2015, the Company issued a $39.4 million letter of credit supporting Dakota Prairie’s $75.0 million
revolving credit agreement, which expires July 6, 2016.
During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company purchased $2.6 million of crude oil and other feedstocks at cost
from Dakota Prairie. Accounts payable to Dakota Prairie at December 31, 2015, were $1.4 million for crude oil and other feedstock
purchases.
During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company purchased $4.6 million of crude oil on behalf of Dakota Prairie
and sold it to Dakota Prairie at cost, which resulted in an immaterial gain. Other receivables from Dakota Prairie at December 31,
2015, were $0.4 million.
In the event Dakota Prairie is unable to sell atmospheric towers bottoms (“ATB’s”) to a third party at or above acquisition
costs, or in the event third party sales do not cover crude oil acquisition costs, the joint venture agreement requires the Company
to either buy the ATB’s or cover any shortfall between the third party sales and the crude oil acquisition cost. During the year
ended December 31, 2015, the Company paid $1.1 million of shortfall under the agreement. Accounts payable to Dakota Prairie
at December 31, 2015, were $0.7 million related to the shortfall agreement.
The Company subleased railcars from Dakota Prairie in 2015 and 2014. The amount charged for these subleases totaled $0.6
million in 2015 and 2014. There were no accounts payable as of December 31, 2015 related to the railcar subleases. Accounts
payable were $0.5 million as of December 31, 2014 related to the railcar subleases.
On January 1, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with Dakota Prairie to provide administrative services to Dakota
Prairie. The amount charged for these services during the year ended December 31, 2015 was $0.4 million. Other accounts receivable
from Dakota Prairie at December 31, 2015 were immaterial.
The Company provides certain services to Dakota Prairie, which include costs for payroll and certain other employee benefits.
The amount related to such services was $0.2 million in 2015 and $0.4 million in 2014.
The Company’s membership interest in Dakota Prairie is significant as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
(“SEC”) Regulation S-X Rule 1-02(w). Accordingly, as required by Regulation S-X Rule 3-09, the Company has included the
audited financial statements of Dakota Prairie as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, as an exhibit to this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.
Juniper GTL LLC
On June 9, 2014, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Clean Fuels North America, LLC, which is owned
by SGC Energia and Great Northern Project Development, to develop, build and operate a gas-to-liquids (“GTL”) plant in Lake
Charles, Louisiana. The joint venture is named New Source Fuels, LLC, and it owns 100% of Juniper GTL LLC (“Juniper”). The
Company invested $25.0 million in total in exchange for an equity interest of approximately 23% in the joint venture. During
September 2015, the Company determined the fair value of its investment in Juniper was less than its carrying value of $24.3
million. As a result, the Company recorded a $24.3 million impairment charge in loss from unconsolidated affiliates in the
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. Inputs used to estimate the fair value of Juniper was
considered Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.
5. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
During September 2015, the Company determined that the expected operating results for one of its reporting units was
projected to be substantially lower than previous forecasts due to the continued decline in crude oil prices. As a result, the Company
determined that these recent events constituted a triggering event that required the Company to update its goodwill impairment
assessment through September 30, 2015. An impairment charge of $33.8 million for goodwill related to the oilfield services
segment has been recorded in the consolidated statements of operations within asset impairment. The impairment charge was
primarily driven by the reduced outlook on revenues and profitability as a result of falling crude oil prices driving declines in U.S.
land based rig counts.
To derive the fair value of the reporting units, as required in step one of the impairment test, the Company used the income
approach, specifically the discounted cash flow method, to determine the fair value of each reporting unit and the associated
amount of the impairment charge. The income approach focuses on the income-producing capability of an asset, measuring the
current value of the asset by calculating the present value of its future economic benefits such as cash earnings, cost savings,
108
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
corporate tax structure and product offerings. Value indications are developed by discounting expected cash flows to their present
value at a rate of return that incorporates the risk-free rate for the use of funds, the expected rate of inflation, and risks associated
with the reporting unit.
Inputs used to estimate the fair value of the Company’s reporting units are considered Level 3 inputs of the fair value hierarchy
and include the following:
• The Company’s financial projections for its reporting units are based on its analysis of various supply and demand factors,
which include, among other things, industry-wide capacity, planned utilization rate, end-user demand, crack spreads,
capital expenditures and economic conditions. Such estimates are consistent with those used in the Company’s planning
and capital investment reviews and include recent historical prices and published forward prices. Revenue growth rates
assumed for the Company’s reporting unit where impairment was recognized were approximately (17)% for 2015 and
ranged from (3)% to 18% for 2016 and beyond.
• The discount rate used to measure the present value of the projected future cash flows is based on a variety of factors,
including market and economic conditions, operational risk, regulatory risk and political risk. This discount rate is also
compared to recent observable market transactions, if possible. The discount rate used for the Company’s reporting unit
where impairment was recognized was approximately 15.5% per year.
For Level 3 measurements, significant increases or decreases in long-term growth rates or discount rates in isolation or in
combination could result in a significantly lower or higher fair value measurement.
Changes in goodwill balances are as follows (in millions):
Net balance as of December 31, 2013
Acquisitions (1)
Impairment (2)
Net balance as of December 31, 2014
Impairment (2)
Net balance as of December 31, 2015
Specialty
Products
Fuel
Products
Oilfield
Services
Total
$
$
$
168.5
$
38.5
$
— $
5.0
—
173.5
—
173.5
$
$
—
—
38.5
—
38.5
$
$
69.8
(36.0)
33.8
(33.8)
$
— $
207.0
74.8
(36.0)
245.8
(33.8)
212.0
(1) See Note 3 for discussion of the acquisitions completed during 2014.
(2) Total accumulated goodwill impairment as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, is $69.8 million and $36.0 million, respectively.
Other intangible assets consist of the following (in millions):
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Customer relationships
Supplier agreements
Tradenames
Trade secrets
Patents
Non-competition agreements
Distributor agreements
Royalty agreements
Weighted
Average Life
(Years)
21
4
16
13
12
4
3
19
18
Gross Amount
243.7
$
21.5
46.6
52.7
1.6
8.8
2.0
4.5
381.4
$
$
Accumulated
Amortization
$
(97.5) $
(21.5)
(10.7)
(23.4)
(1.4)
(8.8)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(167.3) $
Gross Amount
243.7
21.5
46.6
52.7
1.6
8.8
2.0
4.5
381.4
Accumulated
Amortization
(68.4)
$
(21.5)
(4.9)
(16.7)
(1.3)
(7.3)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(123.9)
$
Supplier agreements, tradenames (other than indefinite lived), trade secrets, patents, non-competition agreements, distributor
agreements and royalty agreements are being amortized to properly match expenses with the undiscounted estimated future cash
flows over the terms of the related agreements or the period expected to be benefited. The costs of agreements with terms allowing
for the potential extension of such agreements are being amortized based on the initial term only. Customer relationships are being
109
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
amortized using undiscounted estimated future cash flows based upon assumed rates of annual customer attrition. For the years
ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded amortization expense of intangible assets of $43.4 million,
$40.3 million and $25.6 million, respectively.
As of December 31, 2015, the Company estimates that amortization of intangible assets for the next five years will be as
follows (in millions):
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
6. Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Leases
Amortization Amount
$
$
$
$
$
37.2
32.3
27.3
22.8
18.8
The Company has various operating leases primarily for the use of land, storage tanks, railcars, equipment, precious metals
and office facilities that extend through July 2055. Renewal options are available on certain of these leases in which the Company
is the lessee. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $67.8 million, $59.9 million and $35.3
million, respectively.
As of December 31, 2015, 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 (in millions):
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thereafter
Total
Operating
Leases
42.8
37.9
33.3
22.2
16.9
27.0
180.1
$
$
Crude Oil Supply, Other Feedstocks and Finished Products
The Company is currently purchasing a majority of its crude oil under month-to-month evergreen contracts or on a spot
basis.
The Company entered into a Crude Oil Purchase Agreement (the “BP Purchase Agreement”) with BP Products North America
Inc. (“BP”), pursuant to which BP supplies the Superior refinery with a portion of its daily crude oil requirements, utilizing a
market-based pricing mechanism, plus transportation and handling costs. Total crude oil requirements for the Superior refinery
are estimated to be between 35,000 and 45,000 bpd. The BP Purchase Agreement, as amended and restated, had an initial term of
one year ending April 1, 2014, and automatically renews for successive one-year terms unless terminated by either party upon
90 days’ notice prior to the end of any renewal term. To secure a portion of the Company’s payment obligations under the BP
Purchase Agreement, the Company and its affiliates have granted a limited interest, capped at $100.0 million, for physical forwards
in the collateral pledged as security under the Collateral Trust Agreement to BP as a “Forward Purchase Secured Hedge
Counterparty” under its Collateral Trust Agreement, as such term is defined therein.
Certain other feedstocks are purchased under long-term supply contracts. The Company also purchases finished products
from Houston Refining. The Company is required to purchase all of the naphthenic lubricating oils produced at Houston Refining’s
refinery in Houston, Texas, up to 3,100 bpd, and has a right of first refusal to purchase any additional naphthenic lubricating oils
(above the 3,100 bpd) produced at the refinery. In addition, Houston Refining is required to toll-process a minimum of approximately
600 bpd of white mineral oil for the Company at Houston Refining’s Houston, Texas refinery. The annual purchase commitment
under these agreements is approximately $87.5 million.
110
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
As of December 31, 2015, the estimated minimum purchase commitments under the Company’s crude oil, other feedstock
supply and finished product agreements were as follows (in millions):
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thereafter
Total
Commitment
493.6
149.8
87.6
80.3
—
—
811.3
$
$
The Company has a feedstock purchase agreement with Phillips 66 related to the LVT unit at its Lake Charles, Louisiana
refinery (the “LVT Feedstock Agreement”). Pursuant to the LVT Feedstock Agreement, Phillips 66 is obligated to supply a minimum
quantity (the “Base Volume”) of feedstock for the LVT unit for a term of ten years. Based upon this minimum supply quantity,
the Company expects to purchase approximately $27.5 million of feedstock for the LVT unit in each fiscal year of the term of the
contract expiring January 1, 2018, based on pricing estimates as of December 31, 2015. This amount is not included in the table
above.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and litigation incidental to its business, including claims made
by various taxation and regulatory authorities, such as the EPA, various state environmental regulatory bodies, the Internal Revenue
Service, various state and local departments of revenue and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”),
as the result of audits or reviews of the Company’s business. In addition, the Company has property, business interruption, general
liability and various other insurance policies that may result in certain losses or expenditures being reimbursed to the Company.
Environmental
The Company conducts crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining, blending and terminal operations in addition to providing
oilfield services and products, which activities are subject to stringent federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations
governing worker health and safety, the discharge of materials into the environment and environmental protection. These laws
and regulations impose obligations that are applicable to the Company’s operations, such as requiring the acquisition of permits
to conduct regulated activities, restricting the manner in which the Company may release materials into the environment, requiring
remedial activities or capital expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current operations, requiring the application of
specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from its
operations. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative,
civil and criminal penalties; the imposition of investigatory, remedial or corrective action obligations or the incurrence of capital
expenditures; the occurrence of delays in the permitting, development or expansion of projects, and the issuance of injunctive
relief limiting or prohibiting Company activities. Moreover, certain of these 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.
In addition, new laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased governmental enforcement
or other developments, some of which legal requirements are discussed below, could significantly increase the Company’s
operational or compliance expenditures.
Remediation of subsurface contamination is in process at certain of the Company’s refinery sites and is being overseen by
the appropriate state agencies. Based on current investigative and remedial activities, the Company believes that the soil and
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled or remedied without having a material adverse effect on the
Company’s financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the
future costs will not become material.
San Antonio Refinery
In connection with the San Antonio Acquisition (see Note 3), the Company agreed to indemnify NuStar for an unlimited
term and without consideration of a monetary deductible or cap from any environmental liabilities associated with the San Antonio
refinery, except for any governmental penalties or fines that may result from NuStar’s actions or inactions during NuStar’s 20-
month period of ownership of the San Antonio refinery. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) and Age Refining, Inc.
(“Age Refining”), a third party that has since entered bankruptcy, are subject to a 1995 Agreed Order from the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, now known as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, pursuant to which Anadarko
111
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
and Age Refining are obligated to assess and remediate certain contamination at the San Antonio refinery that predates the
Company’s acquisition of the facility. The Company does not expect this pre-existing contamination at the San Antonio refinery
to have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.
Montana Refinery
In connection with the acquisition of the Montana refinery from Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (“Connacher”), the Company
became a party to an existing 2002 Refinery Initiative Consent Decree (the “Montana Consent Decree”) with the EPA and the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (the “MDEQ”). The material obligations imposed by the Montana Consent Decree
have been completed. On September 27, 2012, Montana Refining Company, Inc. received a final Corrective Action Order on
Consent, replacing the refinery’s previously held hazardous waste permit. This Corrective Action Order on Consent governs the
investigation and remediation of contamination at the Montana refinery. The Company believes the majority of damages related
to such contamination at the Montana refinery are covered by a contractual indemnity provided by HollyFrontier Corporation
(“Holly”), the owner and operator of the Montana refinery prior to its acquisition by Connacher, under an asset purchase agreement
between Holly and Connacher, pursuant to which Connacher acquired the Montana refinery. Under this asset purchase agreement,
Holly agreed to indemnify Connacher and Montana Refining Company, Inc., subject to timely notification, certain conditions and
certain monetary baskets and caps, for environmental conditions arising under Holly’s ownership and operation of the Montana
refinery and existing as of the date of sale to Connacher. During 2014, Holly provided the Company a notice challenging the
Company’s position that Holly is obligated to indemnify the Company’s remediation expenses for environmental conditions to
the extent arising under Holly’s ownership and operation of the refinery and existing as of the date of sale to Connacher, which
expenses totaled approximately $17.6 million as of December 31, 2015, of which $14.4 million was capitalized into the cost of
the Company’s recently completed expansion project and $3.2 million was expensed. The Company continues to believe that
Holly is responsible to indemnify the Company for these remediation expenses disputed by Holly, and on September 22, 2015,
the Company initiated a lawsuit against Holly and the sellers of the Montana refinery under the asset purchase agreement. On
November 24, 2015, Holly and the sellers of the Montana refinery under the asset purchase agreement filed a motion to dismiss
the case pending arbitration. The Company is opposing the motion. In the event the Company is unsuccessful, the Company will
be responsible for those remediation expenses. The Company expects that it may incur some costs to remediate other environmental
conditions at the Montana refinery; however, the Company believes at this time that these other costs it may incur will not be
material to its financial position or results of operations.
Superior Refinery
In connection with the acquisition of the Superior refinery, the Company became a party to an existing Refinery Initiative
Consent Decree (“Superior Consent Decree”) with the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) that
applies, in part, to its Superior refinery. Under the Superior Consent Decree, the Company must complete certain reductions in
air emissions at the Superior refinery as well as report upon certain emissions from the refinery to the EPA and the WDNR. The
Company estimates costs of up to $4.0 million to make known equipment upgrades and conduct other discrete tasks in compliance
with the Superior Consent Decree. Failure to perform these required tasks under the Superior Consent Decree could result in the
imposition of stipulated penalties, which could be material. The Company is currently assessing certain past actions at the refinery
for compliance with the terms of the Superior Consent Decree, which actions may be subject to stipulated penalties under the
Superior Consent Decree but, in any event, the Company does not currently believe that the imposition of such penalties for those
actions, should they be imposed, would be material. In addition, the Company is pursuing certain additional environmental and
safety-related projects at the Superior refinery. Completion of these additional projects will result in the Company incurring
additional costs, which could be substantial. During 2015, the Company incurred no costs related to installing process equipment
at the Superior refinery pursuant to the EPA fuel content regulations. During 2014, the Company incurred approximately $0.7
million of costs related to installing process equipment at the Superior refinery pursuant to the EPA fuel content regulations.
On June 29, 2012, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation/Notice of Violation to the Superior refinery, which included a
proposed penalty amount of $0.1 million. This finding is in response to information provided to the EPA by the Company in
response to an information request. The EPA alleges that the efficiency of the flares at the Superior refinery is lower than regulatory
requirements. The Company is contesting the allegations and is in settlement discussions with the EPA to resolve this issue. The
Company has not yet received formal action from the EPA. The Company does not believe that the resolution of these allegations
will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
The Company is contractually indemnified by Murphy Oil Corporation (“Murphy Oil”) under an asset purchase agreement
between the Company and Murphy Oil for specified environmental liabilities arising from the operation of the Superior refinery
including: (i) certain obligations arising out of the Superior Consent Decree (including payment of a civil penalty required under
the Superior Consent Decree), (ii) certain liabilities arising in connection with Murphy Oil’s transport of certain wastes and other
materials to specified offsite real properties for disposal or recycling prior to the Superior Acquisition and (iii) certain liabilities
112
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
for certain third party actions, suits or proceedings alleging exposure, prior to the Superior Acquisition, of an individual to wastes
or other materials at the specified on-site real property, which wastes or other materials were spilled, released, emitted or otherwise
discharged by Murphy Oil. The Company believes contractual indemnity by Murphy Oil for such specified environmental liabilities
is unlimited in duration and not subject to any monetary deductibles or maximums. The amount of any damages payable by Murphy
Oil pursuant to the contractual indemnities under the asset purchase agreement are net of any amount recoverable under an
environmental insurance policy that the Company obtained in connection with the Superior Acquisition, which named the Company
and Murphy Oil as insureds and covers environmental conditions existing at the Superior refinery prior to the Superior Acquisition.
Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton Refineries
On December 23, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (“LDEQ”) under LDEQ’s “Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative,” covering the Shreveport, Princeton and
Cotton Valley refineries. This settlement agreement became effective on January 31, 2012. The settlement agreement, termed the
“Global Settlement,” resolved alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and federal Clean Water Act regulations that arose
prior to December 23, 2010. Among other things, the Company agreed to complete beneficial environmental programs and
implement emissions reduction projects at the Company’s Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries on an agreed-upon
schedule. During 2015 and 2014, the Company incurred approximately $6.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, of such
expenditures and estimates additional expenditures of approximately $3.0 million to $5.0 million of capital expenditures and
expenditures related to additional personnel and environmental studies through 2016 as a result of the implementation of these
requirements. These capital investment requirements will be incorporated into the Company’s annual capital expenditures budget
and the Company does not expect any additional capital expenditures as a result of the required audits or required operational
changes included in the Global Settlement to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of
operations.
The Company is contractually indemnified by Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), as successor to Pennzoil-Quaker State Company,
and Atlas Processing Company, under an asset purchase agreement between the Company and Shell, for specified environmental
liabilities arising from the operations of the Shreveport refinery prior to the Company’s acquisition of the facility. The Company
believes the contractual indemnity is unlimited in amount and duration, but requires the Company to contribute $1.0 million of
the first $5.0 million of indemnified costs for certain of the specified environmental liabilities.
Bel-Ray Facility
Bel-Ray executed an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
effective January 4, 1994, which required investigation and remediation of contamination at or emanating from the Bel-Ray facility.
In 2000, Bel-Ray entered into a fixed price remediation contract with Weston Solutions (“Weston”), a large remediation contractor,
whereby Weston agreed to be fully liable for the remediation of the soil and groundwater issues at the facility, including an offsite
groundwater plume pursuant to the ACO (“Weston Agreement”). The Weston Agreement set up a trust fund to reimburse Weston,
administered by Bel-Ray’s environmental counsel. As of December 31, 2015, the trust fund contained approximately $0.8 million.
In addition, Weston has remediation cost containment insurance, should Weston be unable to complete the work required under
the Weston Agreement. In connection with the Bel-Ray Acquisition, the Company became a party to the Weston Agreement.
Weston has been addressing the environmental issues at the Bel-Ray facility over time, and the next phase will address the
groundwater issues, which extend offsite.
Occupational Health and Safety
The Company is subject to various laws and regulations relating to occupational health and safety, including OSHA and
comparable state laws. These laws and regulations strictly govern the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition,
OSHA’s hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in
the Company’s operations and that this information be provided to employees, contractors, state and local government authorities
and customers. The Company maintains safety and training programs as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. The Company conducts periodic audits of Process Safety Management (“PSM”) systems at each
of its locations subject to the PSM standard. The Company’s compliance with applicable health and safety laws and regulations
has required, and continues to require, substantial expenditures. Changes in occupational safety and health laws and regulations
or a finding of non-compliance with current laws and regulations could result in additional capital expenditures or operating
expenses, as well as civil penalties and, in the event of a serious injury or fatality, criminal charges.
The Company has completed studies to assess the adequacy of its PSM practices at its Shreveport refinery with respect to
certain consensus codes and standards. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company incurred approximately
$0.6 million and $1.1 million, respectively, of PSM related capital expenditures and expects to incur up to $1.4 million of capital
expenditures during 2016 to address OSHA compliance issues identified in these studies. The Company expects these capital
113
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
expenditures will enhance its equipment such that the equipment maintains compliance with applicable consensus codes and
standards.
In the first quarter of 2011, OSHA conducted an inspection of the Cotton Valley refinery’s PSM program. On March 14,
2011, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (the “Cotton Valley Citation”) to the Company as a result of the Cotton
Valley inspection, which included a proposed penalty amount of $0.2 million. The Company has contested the Cotton Valley
Citation and the parties have reached a tentative settlement with OSHA on the matter, which the Company does not believe will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.
Labor Matters
The Company has approximately 613 employees covered by various collective bargaining agreements, or approximately
28% of its total workforce of approximately 2,175 employees. These agreements have expiration dates of March 31, 2016, April 30,
2016, June 30, 2017, October 31, 2017, and January 31, 2019. The Company has approximately 241 employees, or approximately
11% of its total workforce, covered by collective bargaining agreements that expire in less than one year and does not expect any
work stoppages.
Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved in the legal proceedings described below and is subject to other claims and litigation arising in
the normal course of its business. The Company has recorded accruals with respect to certain of these matters, where appropriate,
that are reflected in its consolidated financial statements but are not, individually or in the aggregate, considered material. For
other matters, the Company has not recorded accruals because it has not yet determined that a loss is probable or because the
amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. While the ultimate outcome of the matters described below and other claims and
litigation currently pending cannot be determined, the Company currently does not expect that these proceedings and claims,
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and if decided adversely to the Company, or if the Company
determines that settlement of particular litigation is appropriate, the Company may be subject to liability that could have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Accordingly, the Company discloses matters below
for which a material loss is reasonably possible. In each case, however, the Company has either determined that the range of loss
is not reasonably estimable or that any reasonably estimable range of loss is not material to its consolidated financial statements.
On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was filed
titled Jonathan Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(“Wolfe”). The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015 and the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on February 26, 2015, adding that Anchor’s failure to pay overtime to a subclass of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act (the “Pennsylvania Act”). For this subclass, the Wolfe plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the
Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The portion
of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired Anchor, is
eligible for indemnification under the securities purchase agreement that effected that transaction; however, the right to
indemnification under the securities purchase agreement for the potential Wolfe liability is subject to a deductible and limitations
otherwise set forth in the securities purchase agreement. On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative
settlement of this litigation. On September 3, 2015, the U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 6, 2016, a final judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court
approving the settlement. The settlement amount is not material to the consolidated financial statements.
On November 21, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit alleging that Anchor and the Company, as well as SOS, failed
to pay solids control technicians overtime in compliance with the FLSA was filed titled Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield
Solutions, Ltd., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“Niver”). The Niver plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on January 21, 2015, adding that defendants’ failure to pay overtime to a subclass of solids control technicians
violated the Pennsylvania Act. For this subclass, the Niver plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the Pennsylvania
Act. The Niver plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Anchor and the Company
filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 2, 2015. The Company consented to conditional certification in the case,
and notice of the collective action has been issued to potential class members. The portion of the potential liability that relates to
the period prior to August 1, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired the assets of SOS, was retained by, and is the
responsibility of, SOS. To the extent Anchor or the Company is found liable for damages relating to the period prior to the acquisition
of the assets of SOS, Anchor and the Company are eligible for indemnification under the asset purchase agreement that effected
that transaction, and no deductible is applicable; however, the right to indemnification is subject to limitations otherwise set forth
in the asset purchase agreement. On June 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative settlement of this
114
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
litigation. On October 7, 2015, the U.S. District Court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the case with
prejudice. The settlement amount was not material to the consolidated financial statements.
Standby Letters of Credit
The Company has agreements with various financial institutions for standby letters of credit which have been issued primarily
to vendors. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had outstanding standby letters of credit of $66.8 million and $114.3
million, respectively, under its senior secured revolving credit facility, which was amended and restated on July 14, 2014 (the
“revolving credit facility”). Refer to Note 7 for additional information regarding the Company’s revolving credit facility. At
December 31, 2015 and 2014, the maximum amount of letters of credit the Company could issue under its revolving credit facility
was subject to borrowing base limitations, with a maximum letter of credit sublimit equal to $600.0 million, which amount may
be increased to 90% of revolver commitments in effect ($1.0 billion at December 31, 2015) with the consent of the Agent (as
defined in the revolving credit facility agreement).
As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had availability to issue letters of credit of $233.5 million and $310.8
million, respectively, under its revolving credit facility.
7. Long-Term Debt
Long-term debt consisted of the following (in millions):
Borrowings under amended and restated senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest payments quarterly, borrowings due July 2019, weighted average
interest rates of 3.3% and 2.6% at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively
$
111.0
$
150.8
December 31,
2015
December 31,
2014
Borrowings under 2020 Notes, interest at a fixed rate of 9.625%, interest payments
semiannually, borrowings due August 2020, effective interest rate of 10.1% for each year
ended December 31, 2015 and 2014
Borrowings under 2021 Notes, interest at a fixed rate of 6.50%, interest payments
semiannually, borrowings due April 2021, effective interest rates of 6.8% and 6.7% for the
year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively
Borrowings under 2022 Notes, interest at a fixed rate of 7.625%, interest payments
semiannually, borrowings due January 2022, effective interest rate of 8.0% for each year
ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (1)
Borrowings under 2023 Notes, interest at a fixed rate of 7.75%, interest payments
semiannually, borrowings due April 2023, effective interest rate of 8.0% for the year ended
December 31, 2015
Related party note payable, interest at a fixed rate of 6.0% on a portion of the note, interest
payments at various dates, borrowings due July 2016, weighted average interest rate of 6%
for the year ended December 31, 2015
Capital lease obligations, at various interest rates, interest and principal payments monthly
through October 2034
Less unamortized debt issuance costs (2)
Less unamortized discounts
Total long-term debt
Less current portion of note payable - related party
Less current portion of long-term debt
—
275.0
900.0
900.0
352.9
352.5
325.0
73.5
46.4
(28.9)
(6.5)
1,773.4
73.5
1.7
1,698.2
$
—
—
43.6
(34.7)
(8.4)
1,678.8
—
0.6
1,678.2
$
(1) The balance includes a fair value interest rate hedge adjustment, which increased the debt balance by $2.9 million and $2.5
million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively (refer to Note 8 for additional information on the interest rate swap
designated as a fair value hedge).
(2) Deferred debt issuance costs are being amortized by the effective interest rate method over the lives of the related debt
instruments. These amounts are net of accumulated amortization of $8.1 million and $4.3 million at December 31, 2015 and
2014, respectively.
115
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Senior Notes
7.75% Senior Notes (the “2023 Notes”)
On March 27, 2015, the Company issued and sold $325.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.75% Senior Notes due
April 15, 2023 in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),
to eligible purchasers at a discounted price of 99.257 percent of par. The 2023 Notes were resold to qualified institutional buyers
pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the U.S. pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The Company received net proceeds of approximately $317.0 million net of discount, initial purchasers’ fees and expenses, which
the Company used to fund the redemption of $178.8 million in aggregate principal amount of outstanding 2020 Notes (defined
below) on April 28, 2015, to repay borrowings outstanding under its revolving credit facility and for general partnership purposes,
including planned capital expenditures at the Company’s facilities and working capital. Interest on the 2023 Notes is paid
semiannually in arrears on April 15 and October 15 of each year, beginning on October 15, 2015.
At any time prior to April 15, 2018, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem up to 35% of the aggregate
principal amount of the 2023 Notes with the net proceeds of a public or private equity offering at a redemption price of 107.75%
of the principal amount, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, provided that: (1) at least 65% of the
aggregate principal amount of 2023 Notes issued remains outstanding immediately after the occurrence of such redemption and
(2) the redemption occurs within 180 days of the date of the closing of such public or private equity offering.
On and after April 15, 2018, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or a part of the 2023 Notes at the
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal amount) set forth below, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the applicable
redemption date on such 2023 Notes, if redeemed during the twelve-month period beginning on April 15 of the years indicated
below:
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021 and thereafter
Percentage
105.813%
103.875%
101.938%
100.000%
Prior to April 15, 2018, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or part of the 2023 Notes at a redemption
price equal to the sum of: (1) the principal amount thereof, plus (2) the make-whole premium (as set forth in the indenture governing
the 2023 Notes) at the redemption date, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the applicable redemption date.
On March 27, 2015, in connection with the issuance and sale of the 2023 Notes, the Company entered into a registration
rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the 2023 Notes obligating the Company to use reasonable best efforts to file an
exchange offer registration statement with the SEC, so that holders of the 2023 Notes can offer to exchange the 2023 Notes for
registered notes having substantially the same terms as the 2023 Notes and evidencing the same indebtedness as the 2023 Notes.
On December 11, 2015, the Company filed an exchange offer registration statement for the 2023 Notes with the SEC, which was
declared effective on January 28, 2016. The exchange offer is expected to be completed on February 29, 2016, thereby fulfilling
all of the requirements of the 2023 Notes registration rights agreement.
6.50% Senior Notes (the “2021 Notes”)
On March 31, 2014, the Company issued and sold $900.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 6.50% senior notes due
April 15, 2021 in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),
to eligible purchasers at par. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $884.0 million, net of initial purchasers’ fees
and expenses, which the Company used to fund the purchase price of the Anchor Acquisition (refer to Note 3 for additional
information), the redemption of $500.0 million in aggregate principal amount outstanding of 9.375% senior notes due 2019 (“2019
Notes”) and for general partnership purposes, including planned capital expenditures at the Company’s facilities. Interest on the
2021 Notes is paid semiannually in arrears on April 15 and October 15 of each year, beginning on October 15, 2014.
At any time prior to April 15, 2017, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem up to 35% of the aggregate
principal amount of the 2021 Notes with the net proceeds of a public or private equity offering at a redemption price of 106.5%
of the principal amount, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, provided that: (1) at least 65% of the
aggregate principal amount of 2021 Notes issued remains outstanding immediately after the occurrence of such redemption and
(2) the redemption occurs within 180 days of the date of the closing of such public or private equity offering.
116
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
On and after April 15, 2017, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or a part of the 2021 Notes at the
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal amount) set forth below, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the
applicable redemption date on such 2021 Notes, if redeemed during the twelve-month period beginning on April 15 of the years
indicated below:
Year
2017
2018
2019 and thereafter
Percentage
103.250%
101.625%
100.000%
Prior to April 15, 2017, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or part of the 2021 Notes at a redemption
price equal to the sum of: (1) the principal amount thereof, plus (2) a make-whole premium (as set forth in the indenture governing
the 2021 Notes) at the redemption date, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the applicable redemption date.
On March 31, 2014, in connection with the issuance and sale of the 2021 Notes, the Company entered into a registration
rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the 2021 Notes obligating the Company to use reasonable best efforts to file an
exchange offer registration statement with the SEC, so that holders of the 2021 Notes can offer to exchange the 2021 Notes for
registered notes having substantially the same terms as the 2021 Notes and evidencing the same indebtedness as the 2021 Notes.
On March 24, 2015, the Company filed an exchange offer registration statement for the 2021 Notes with the SEC, which was
declared effective on April 3, 2015. The exchange offer was completed on April 30, 2015, thereby fulfilling all of the requirements
of the 2021 Notes registration rights agreement.
7.625% Senior Notes (the “2022 Notes”)
On November 26, 2013, the Company issued and sold $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.625% senior notes
due January 15, 2022, in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, to eligible purchasers at a discounted
price of 98.494 percent of par. The 2022 Notes were resold to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the
Securities Act and to persons outside the U.S. pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Company received net
proceeds of $337.4 million, net of discount, initial purchasers’ fees and expenses, which the Company used for general partnership
purposes, to fund previously announced organic growth projects, to fund the purchase price of the Bel-Ray Acquisition and the
redemption of $100.0 million in aggregate principal amount outstanding of 2019 Notes. Refer to Note 3 for additional information
regarding the Bel-Ray Acquisition. Interest on the 2022 Notes is paid semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each
year, beginning on July 15, 2014.
At any time prior to January 15, 2017, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem up to 35% of the aggregate
principal amount of the 2022 Notes with the net proceeds of a public or private equity offering at a redemption price of 107.625%
of the principal amount, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, provided that: (1) at least 65% of the
aggregate principal amount of 2022 Notes issued remains outstanding immediately after the occurrence of such redemption and
(2) the redemption occurs within 180 days of the date of the closing of such public or private equity offering.
On and after January 15, 2018, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or a part of the 2022 Notes at
the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal amount) set forth below, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the
applicable redemption date on such 2022 Notes, if redeemed during the twelve-month period beginning on January 15 of the years
indicated below:
Year
2018
2019
2020 and thereafter
Percentage
103.813%
101.906%
100.000%
Prior to January 15, 2018, the Company may on any one or more occasions redeem all or part of the 2022 Notes at a redemption
price equal to the sum of: (1) the principal amount thereof, plus (2) a make-whole premium (as set forth in the indenture governing
the 2022 Notes) at the redemption date, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to the applicable redemption date.
On November 26, 2013, in connection with the issuance and sale of the 2022 Notes, the Company entered into a registration
rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the 2022 Notes obligating the Company to use reasonable best efforts to file an
exchange offer registration statement with the SEC, so that holders of the 2022 Notes can offer to exchange the 2022 Notes for
registered notes having substantially the same terms as the 2022 Notes and evidencing the same indebtedness as the 2022 Notes.
117
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
On November 27, 2013, the Company filed an exchange offer registration statement for the 2022 Notes with the SEC, which was
declared effective on December 10, 2013. The exchange offer was completed on January 13, 2014, thereby fulfilling all of the
requirements of the 2022 Notes registration rights agreement.
9.625% Senior Notes (the “2020 Notes”)
On June 29, 2012, in connection with the acquisition of Royal Purple, the Company issued and sold $275.0 million in
aggregate principal amount of 9.625% senior notes due August 1, 2020 in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, to eligible purchasers at a discounted price of 98.25 percent of par. The 2020 Notes were resold to qualified
institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the U.S. pursuant to Regulation S under
the Securities Act. The Company received net proceeds of $262.5 million, net of discount, initial purchasers’ fees and expenses,
which the Company used to fund a portion of the purchase price of Royal Purple.
On April 27, 2015, the Company redeemed $96.2 million aggregate principal amount of 2020 Notes with a portion of the
net proceeds of the March 13, 2015 public offering of its common units in which it sold 6,000,000 common units. Additionally,
on April 28, 2015, the Company redeemed the remaining $178.8 million aggregate principal amount of 2020 Notes with a portion
of the net proceeds from the issuance of the 2023 Notes. In conjunction with the redemptions, the Company incurred debt
extinguishment costs of $46.6 million.
2021 Notes, 2022 Notes and 2023 Notes
In accordance with SEC Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X, condensed consolidated financial statements of non-guarantors are
not required. The Company has no assets or operations independent of its subsidiaries. Obligations under its 2021, 2022 and 2023
Notes are fully and unconditionally and jointly and severally guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by the Company’s current
100%-owned operating subsidiaries and certain of the Company’s future operating subsidiaries, with the exception of the Company’s
“minor” subsidiaries (as defined by Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X), including Calumet Finance Corp. (100%-owned Delaware
corporation that was organized for the sole purpose of being a co-issuer of certain of the Company’s indebtedness, including the
2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes). There are no significant restrictions on the ability of the Company or subsidiary guarantors for the
Company to obtain funds from its subsidiary guarantors by dividend or loan. None of the subsidiary guarantors’ assets represent
restricted assets pursuant to SEC Rule 4-08(e)(3) of Regulation S-X.
The 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes are subject to certain automatic customary releases, including the sale, disposition, or transfer
of capital stock or substantially all of the assets of a subsidiary guarantor, designation of a subsidiary guarantor as unrestricted in
accordance with the applicable indenture, exercise of legal defeasance option or covenant defeasance option, liquidation or
dissolution of the subsidiary guarantor and a subsidiary guarantor ceases to both guarantee other Company debt and to be an obligor
under the revolving credit facility. The Company’s operating subsidiaries may not sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially
all of their properties or assets to, or consolidate with or merge into, another company if such a sale would cause a default under
the indentures governing the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes.
The indentures governing the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes contain covenants that, among other things, restrict the Company’s
ability and the ability of certain of the Company’s subsidiaries to: (i) sell assets; (ii) pay distributions on, redeem or repurchase
the Company’s common units or redeem or repurchase its subordinated debt; (iii) make investments; (iv) incur or guarantee
additional indebtedness or issue preferred units; (v) create or incur certain liens; (vi) enter into agreements that restrict distributions
or other payments from the Company’s restricted subsidiaries to the Company; (vii) consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially
all of the Company’s assets; (viii) engage in transactions with affiliates and (ix) create unrestricted subsidiaries. These covenants
are subject to important exceptions and qualifications. At any time when the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes are rated investment grade
by either Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) or Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) and no Default or Event
of Default, each as defined in the indentures governing the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes, has occurred and is continuing, many of
these covenants will be suspended. As of December 31, 2015, the Company’s Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined in the
indentures governing the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Notes) was 1.9 to 1.0.
Second Amended and Restated Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility
The Company has a $1.0 billion senior secured revolving credit facility, subject to borrowing base limitations, which includes
a $500.0 million incremental uncommitted expansion feature. The revolving credit facility is the Company’s primary source of
liquidity for cash needs in excess of cash generated from operations. The revolving credit facility matures in July 2019 and currently
bears interest at a rate equal to prime plus a basis points margin or London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus a basis points
margin, at the Company’s option. As of December 31, 2015, the margin was 75 basis points for prime and 175 basis points for
LIBOR; however, the margin can fluctuate quarterly based on the Company’s average availability for additional borrowings under
the revolving credit facility in the preceding calendar quarter as follows:
118
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Quarterly Average Availability Percentage
< 33%
Margin on Base Rate
Revolving Loans
Margin on LIBOR
Revolving Loans
0.50%
0.75%
1.00%
1.50%
1.75%
2.00%
In addition to paying interest quarterly on outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility, the Company is required
to pay a commitment fee to the lenders under the revolving credit facility with respect to the unutilized commitments thereunder
at a rate equal to 0.250% or 0.375% per annum depending on the average daily available unused borrowing capacity for the
preceding month. The Company also pays a customary letter of credit fee, including a fronting fee of 0.125% per annum of the
stated amount of each outstanding letter of credit, and customary agency fees.
The borrowing capacity at December 31, 2015, under the revolving credit facility was $411.3 million. As of December 31,
2015, the Company had $111.0 million in outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility and outstanding standby
letters of credit of $66.8 million, leaving $233.5 million available for additional borrowings based on specified availability
limitations. Lenders under the revolving credit facility have a first priority lien on the Company’s accounts receivable, inventory
and substantially all of its cash.
The revolving credit facility contains various covenants that limit, among other things, the Company’s ability to: incur
indebtedness; grant liens; dispose of certain assets; make certain acquisitions and investments; redeem or prepay other debt or
make other restricted payments such as distributions to unitholders; enter into transactions with affiliates and enter into a merger,
consolidation or sale of assets. Further, the revolving credit facility contains one springing financial covenant which provides that
only if the Company’s availability under the revolving credit facility falls below the greater of (a) 12.5% of the Borrowing Base
(as defined in the revolving credit agreement) then in effect and (b) $45.0 million, then the Company will be required to maintain
as of the end of each fiscal quarter a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined in the revolving credit agreement) of at least 1.0 to
1.0.
As of December 31, 2015, the Company was in compliance with all covenants under the revolving credit facility.
Master Derivative Contracts
The Company’s payment obligations under all of the Company’s master derivatives contracts for commodity hedging
generally are secured by a first priority lien on the Company’s real property, plant and equipment, fixtures, intellectual property,
certain financial assets, certain investment property, commercial tort claims, chattel paper, documents, instruments and proceeds
of the foregoing (including proceeds of hedge arrangements). The Company had no additional letters of credit or cash margin
posted with any hedging counterparty as of December 31, 2015. The Company’s master derivatives contracts and Collateral Trust
Agreement (as defined below) continue to impose a number of covenant limitations on the Company’s operating and financing
activities, including limitations on liens on collateral, limitations on dispositions of collateral and collateral maintenance and
insurance requirements.
Collateral Trust Agreement
The Company has a collateral sharing agreement (the “Collateral Trust Agreement”) with each of its secured hedging
counterparties and an administrative agent for the benefit of the secured hedging counterparties, which governs how the secured
hedging counterparties will share collateral pledged as security for the payment obligations owed by the Company to the secured
hedging counterparties under their respective master derivatives contracts. The Collateral Trust Agreement limits to $100.0 million
the extent to which forward purchase contracts for physical commodities would be covered by, and secured under, the Collateral
Trust Agreement. There is no such limit on financially settled derivative instruments used for commodity hedging. Subject to
certain conditions set forth in the Collateral Trust Agreement, the Company has the ability to add secured hedging counterparties
from time to time.
Related Party Note Payable
On December 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with The Heritage Group (“Heritage”), an affiliate of the
Company’s general partner, in which Heritage made a $27.0 million uncommitted prepayment for the purchase of certain finished
products and entered into a $48.0 million unsecured note payable with the Company as the borrower. Imputed interest on the
prepayment totaled $1.5 million. The note bears interest at 6.0%, with interest payments due on March 31, 2016, June 30, 2016,
and July 31, 2016. Principal payments of $15.0 million each are due on May 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016, with the remaining
principal amount due before July 31, 2016. The proceeds were used for general partnership purposes.
119
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Capital Leases
Assets recorded under these capital lease obligations are included in property, plant and equipment and total $49.0 million
and $48.9 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had
recorded $3.9 million and $5.7 million, respectively, in accumulated depreciation for these capital lease assets.
On July 7, 2014, the Company entered into a capital lease agreement with TexStar Midstream Logistics, L.P. (“TexStar”)
under which TexStar constructed, owns and operates a 30,000 bpd crude oil pipeline system supplying significant volumes of
Eagle Ford crude oil to the Company’s San Antonio refinery for a term of 20 years. Thereafter, the agreement will continue on a
month-to-month basis unless terminated by either party. Under the terms of the agreement, TexStar installed and operates the
Karnes North Pipeline System (“KNPS”), a pipeline that transports crude oil from Karnes City, Texas, to the San Antonio refinery’s
Elmendorf, Texas, terminal, a key supply hub for the San Antonio refinery. The Company expects to receive deliveries of at least
12,000 bpd of crude oil through the KNPS-Elmendorf terminal supply route. The pipeline became fully operational on November 1,
2014. The total obligation and asset under the capital lease agreement as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, was $39.4 million and
$39.3 million, respectively. Total depreciation expense for this lease during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, was
$2.0 million and $0.3 million, respectively.
As of December 31, 2015, the Company had estimated minimum commitments for the payment of total rentals under capital
leases as follows (in millions):
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thereafter
Total minimum lease payments
Less amount representing interest
Capital lease obligations
Less obligations due within one year
Long-term capital lease obligations
Maturities of Long-Term Debt
Capital
Leases
8.2
7.9
7.8
7.4
6.9
96.2
134.4
88.0
46.4
1.7
44.7
$
$
As of December 31, 2015, principal payments of debt obligations and future minimum rentals on capital lease obligations
are as follows (in millions):
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thereafter
Total
8. Derivatives
Maturity
76.7
1.6
1.5
112.3
0.9
1,614.4
1,807.4
$
$
The Company is exposed to price risks due to fluctuations in the price of crude oil, refined products (primarily in the
Company’s fuel products segment), natural gas and precious metals. The Company uses various strategies to reduce its exposure
to commodity price risk. The strategies to reduce the Company’s risk utilize both physical forward contracts and financially settled
derivative instruments, such as swaps, collars and options, to attempt to reduce the Company’s exposure with respect to:
•
crude oil purchases and sales;
120
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
•
•
•
•
fuel product sales and purchases;
natural gas purchases;
precious metals purchases: and
fluctuations in the value of crude oil between geographic regions and between the different types of crude oil such as
NYMEX West Texas Intermediate (“NYMEX WTI”), Light Louisiana Sweet (“LLS”), Western Canadian Select (“WCS”),
Mixed Sweet Blend (“MSW”) and ICE Brent (“Brent”).
The Company manages its exposure to commodity markets, credit, volumetric and liquidity risks to manage its costs and
volatility of cash flows as conditions warrant or opportunities become available. These risks may be managed in a variety of ways
that may include the use of derivative instruments. Derivative instruments may be used for the purpose of mitigating risks associated
with an asset, liability and anticipated future transactions. The changes in fair value of the Company’s derivative instruments will
affect its earnings and cash flows; however, such changes should be offset by price or rate changes related to the underlying
commodity or financial transaction that is part of the risk management strategy. The Company does not speculate with derivative
instruments or other contractual arrangements that are not associated with its business objectives. Speculation is defined as
increasing the Company’s natural position above the maximum position of its physical assets or trading in commodities, currencies
or other risk bearing assets that are not associated with the Company’s business activities and objectives. The Company’s positions
are monitored routinely by a risk management committee to ensure compliance with its stated risk management policy and
documented risk management strategies. All strategies are reviewed on an ongoing basis by the Company’s risk management
committee, which will add, remove or revise strategies in anticipation of changes in market conditions and/or in risk profiles.
These changes in strategies are to position the Company in relation to its risk exposures in an attempt to capture market opportunities
as they arise.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments at their fair values (see Note 9) as either current assets or current liabilities
in the consolidated balance sheets. Fair value includes any premiums paid or received and unrealized gains and losses. Fair value
does not include any amounts receivable from or payable to counterparties, or collateral provided to counterparties. Derivative
asset and liability amounts with the same counterparty are netted against each other for financial reporting purposes. The Company’s
financial results are subject to the possibility that changes in a derivative’s fair value could result in significant ineffectiveness and
potentially no longer qualify portions or all of its derivative instruments for hedge accounting.
121
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The following tables summarize the Company’s gross fair values of its derivative instruments, presenting the impact of
offsetting derivative assets in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Gross Amounts
of Recognized
Assets
Gross Amounts
Offset in the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Net Amounts
of Assets
Presented in
the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Gross Amounts
of Recognized
Assets
Gross Amounts
Offset in the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Net Amounts
of Assets
Presented in
the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Derivative instruments designated as hedges:
$
— $
— $
— $
— $
(10.0) $
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Gasoline swaps
Swaps not allocated to a specific segment:
Interest rate swaps
Total derivative instruments
designated as hedges
Derivative instruments not designated as hedges:
Specialty products segment:
Natural gas swaps
Natural gas collars
Platinum swaps
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis swaps
Crude oil options
Gasoline swaps
Diesel swaps
Diesel crack spread swaps
Jet fuel swaps
Total derivative instruments not
designated as hedges
Total derivative instruments
$
(10.0)
11.5
2.5
4.0
(7.2)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(79.8)
0.8
(0.2)
—
2.0
97.0
4.5
2.7
19.2
23.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.4
0.2
0.8
—
—
—
—
1.4
1.4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.8)
—
—
—
—
(1.4)
(1.4) $
$
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.9
2.5
18.4
—
0.1
—
31.4
0.8
—
—
2.4
116.1
4.5
7.9
163.2
(4.4)
—
(14.4)
(7.2)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(111.2)
—
(0.2)
—
(0.4)
(19.1)
—
(5.2)
(144.0)
— $
181.6
$
(158.4) $
122
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The following tables summarize the Company’s gross fair values of its derivative instruments, presenting the impact of
offsetting derivative liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Gross Amounts
of Recognized
Liabilities
Gross Amounts
Offset in the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Net Amounts
of Liabilities
Presented in
the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Gross Amounts
of Recognized
Liabilities
Gross Amounts
Offset in the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Net Amounts
of Liabilities
Presented in
the
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
Derivative instruments designated as hedges:
$
— $
— $
— $
(13.8) $
10.0
$
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Gasoline swaps
Total derivative instruments
designated as hedges
—
—
Derivative instruments not designated as hedges:
Specialty products segment:
Natural gas swaps
Natural gas collars
Platinum swaps
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis swaps
Crude oil options
Gasoline swaps
Gasoline crack spread swaps
Diesel swaps
Jet fuel swaps
Natural gas swaps
Total derivative instruments not
designated as hedges
(14.9)
(0.9)
—
(5.2)
(0.7)
(6.9)
(1.1)
—
(4.3)
—
—
(1.3)
(35.3)
Total derivative instruments
$
(35.3) $
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.4
0.2
0.8
—
—
—
—
—
1.4
1.4
—
—
(14.9)
(0.9)
—
(5.2)
(0.3)
(6.7)
(0.3)
—
(4.3)
—
—
(1.3)
—
(13.8)
(12.1)
(1.1)
(0.1)
4.4
14.4
7.2
0.6
0.1
(102.4)
111.2
—
(0.2)
—
(1.0)
—
(28.1)
(5.2)
—
—
0.2
—
0.4
—
19.1
5.2
—
(33.9)
(150.2)
144.0
$
(33.9) $
(164.0) $
158.4
$
(3.8)
4.4
0.6
(4.9)
(0.5)
—
8.8
—
—
—
(0.6)
—
(9.0)
—
—
(6.2)
(5.6)
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of nonperformance by its counterparties on these derivative transactions.
The Company does not expect nonperformance on any derivative instruments, however, no assurances can be provided. The
Company’s credit exposure related to these derivative instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts reported as derivative
assets. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had no counterparties in which derivatives held were net assets. As of December 31,
2014, the Company had five counterparties, in which derivatives held were net assets, totaling $23.2 million. To manage credit
risk, the Company selects and periodically reviews counterparties based on credit ratings. The Company primarily executes its
derivative instruments with large financial institutions that have ratings of at least Baa1 and BBB+ by Moody’s Investor Service,
Inc. (“Moody’s”) and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”), respectively. In the event of default, the Company would
potentially be subject to losses on derivative instruments with mark-to-market gains. The Company requires collateral from its
counterparties when the fair value of the derivatives exceeds agreed upon thresholds in its master derivative contracts with these
counterparties. No such collateral was held by the Company as of December 31, 2015 or December 31, 2014. The Company’s
contracts with these counterparties allow for netting of derivative instruments executed under each contract. Collateral received
from counterparties is reported in other current liabilities, and collateral held by counterparties is reported in deposits, on the
Company’s consolidated balance sheets and is not netted against derivative assets or liabilities. Any outstanding collateral is
released to the Company upon settlement of the related derivative instrument liability. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the
Company had provided its counterparties with no collateral.
123
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Certain of the Company’s outstanding derivative instruments are subject to credit support agreements with the applicable
counterparties which contain provisions setting certain credit thresholds above which the Company may be required to post agreed-
upon collateral, such as cash or letters of credit, with the counterparty to the extent that the Company’s mark-to-market net liability,
if any, on all outstanding derivatives exceeds the credit threshold amount per such credit support agreement. The majority of the
credit support agreements covering the Company’s outstanding derivative instruments also contain a general provision stating that
if the Company experiences a material adverse change in its business, in the reasonable discretion of the counterparty, the Company’s
credit threshold could be lowered by such counterparty. The Company does not expect that it will experience a material adverse
change in its business.
The cash flow impact of the Company’s derivative activities is classified primarily as a change in derivative activity in the
operating activities section in the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Derivative Instruments Designated as Cash Flow Hedges
The Company accounts for certain derivatives hedging purchases of crude oil and sales of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel swaps
as cash flow hedges. The derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges that are hedging sales and purchases are recorded
to sales and cost of sales, respectively, in the consolidated statements of operations upon recording the related hedged transaction
in sales or cost of sales. The Company assesses, both at inception of the cash flow hedge and on an ongoing basis, whether the
derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows of hedged items. Periodically,
the Company may enter into crude oil and fuel product basis swaps to more effectively hedge its crude oil purchases, crude oil
sales and fuel products sales. These derivatives can be combined with a swap contract in order to create a more effective cash flow
hedge.
To the extent a derivative instrument designated as a cash flow hedge is determined to be effective as a cash flow hedge of
an exposure to changes in the fair value of a future transaction, the change in fair value of the derivative is deferred in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss), a component of partners’ capital in the consolidated balance sheets, until the underlying
transaction hedged is recognized in the consolidated statements of operations.
Ineffectiveness is inherent in the hedging of crude oil and fuel products. Due to the volatility in the markets for crude oil
and fuel products, the Company is unable to predict the amount of ineffectiveness each period, determined on a derivative by
derivative basis or in the aggregate for a specific commodity, and has the potential for the future loss of cash flow hedge accounting.
Ineffectiveness has resulted, and the loss of cash flow hedge accounting has resulted, in increased volatility in the Company’s
financial results. However, even though certain derivative instruments may not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting, the Company
intends to continue to utilize such instruments as management believes such derivative instruments continue to provide the Company
with the opportunity to more effectively stabilize cash flows.
Cash flow hedge accounting is discontinued when it is determined that a derivative no longer qualifies as an effective hedge
or when it is no longer probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will occur. When cash flow hedge accounting is discontinued
because the derivative instrument no longer qualifies as an effective cash flow hedge, the derivative instrument is subject to the
mark-to-market method of accounting prospectively. Changes in the mark-to-market fair value of the derivative instrument are
recorded to unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of operations. Unrealized gains and
losses related to discontinued cash flow hedges that were previously deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
will remain in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) until the underlying transaction is reflected in earnings, unless it
is probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will not occur, at which time, associated deferred amounts in accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) are immediately recognized in unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments.
124
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The Company recorded the following amounts in its consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations,
consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) and consolidated statements of partners’ capital as of, and for the years
ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, related to its derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges (in millions):
Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
on Derivatives
(Effective Portion)
Year Ended December 31,
Type of Derivative
2015
2014
Specialty products segment:
Amount of Gain (Loss)
Reclassified from
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income (Loss) into
Net Loss (Effective Portion)
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Net
Loss on Derivatives
(Ineffective Portion)
Location of
(Gain) Loss
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Location of
Gain (Loss)
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Crude oil swaps
$
— $
— Cost of sales
$
3.0
$
1.8 Unrealized/Realized
$
— $
—
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Gasoline swaps
Diesel swaps
Jet fuel swaps
(5.6)
5.7
(8.8)
1.4
Total
$
(7.3) $
(185.8) Cost of sales
(170.3)
44.2 Unrealized/Realized
56.3
220.0
23.7
114.2
Sales
Sales
Sales
44.7
121.6
13.1
12.1
$
(1.4) Unrealized/Realized
(6.7) Unrealized/Realized
(0.9) Unrealized/Realized
(0.2)
0.7
—
—
4.8
(7.6)
—
0.6
(2.2)
$
37.0
$
0.5
$
The effective portion of the cash flow hedges classified in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) was a gain of
$6.4 million and a gain of $25.8 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Absent a change in the fair market value
of the underlying transactions, except for any underlying transactions pertaining to the payment of interest on existing financial
instruments, the following other comprehensive gain at December 31, 2015, will be reclassified to earnings by December 31, 2016,
with balances being recognized as follows (in millions):
Year
2016
Total
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive
Income
$
$
6.4
6.4
Derivative Instruments Designated as Fair Value Hedges
For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as a fair value hedge (which are limited to interest rate swaps),
the effective gain or loss on the derivative instrument, as well as the offsetting gain or loss on the hedged item attributable to the
hedged risk are recognized as interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations. No hedge ineffectiveness was recognized
as the interest rate swap qualifies for the “shortcut” method and, as a result, changes in the fair value of the derivative instrument
offset the changes in the fair value of the underlying hedged debt. In addition, the differential to be paid or received on the interest
rate swap arrangement is accrued and recognized as an adjustment to interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.
The Company assesses at the inception of the fair value hedge whether the derivatives that are used in the hedging transactions
are highly effective in offsetting changes in fair values of hedged items.
Fair value hedge accounting is discontinued when it is determined that a derivative no longer qualifies as an effective hedge
or when it is no longer probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will occur. When fair value hedge accounting is discontinued
because the derivative instrument no longer qualifies as effective fair value hedge, the derivative instrument is still subject to mark-
to-market method of accounting, however the Company will cease to adjust the hedged asset or liability for changes in fair value.
In 2014, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement which converts a portion of the Company’s fixed rate
debt to a floating rate. This agreement involves the receipt of fixed rate amounts in exchange for floating rate interest payments
over the life of the agreement without an exchange of the underlying principal amount. Also, in connection with the interest rate
swap agreement, the Company entered into an option that permits the counterparty to cancel the interest rate swap for a specified
premium. The Company designated this interest rate swap and option as a fair value hedge. On January 13, 2015, the Company
terminated its interest rate swap, which was designated as a fair value hedge, related to a notional amount of $200.0 million of
2022 Notes. In settlement of this swap, the Company recognized a net gain of approximately $3.3 million.
125
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The Company recorded the following gains (losses) in its consolidated statements of operations for the years ended
December 31, 2015 and 2014 related to its derivative instrument designated as a fair value hedge (in millions):
Amount of Gain Recognized in
Net Loss
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Hedged Item
Amount of Loss Recognized in Net
Loss
Location of Loss
on Hedged Item
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Location of Gain
of Derivative
Swaps not allocated to a specific segment:
Interest rate
swap
Total
Interest expense
$
$
0.5
0.5
$
$
2.5
2.5
2022 Notes
Interest expense
$
$
— $
— $
(2.5)
(2.5)
Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedges
For derivative instruments not designated as hedges, the change in fair value of the asset or liability for the period is recorded
to unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of operations. Upon the settlement of a derivative
not designated as a hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded to realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations. The Company has entered into crude oil basis swaps that do not qualify as cash flow hedges for accounting
purposes as they were not entered into simultaneously with a corresponding NYMEX WTI derivative contract. Additionally, the
Company has entered into diesel crack spread collars, gasoline crack spread collars, natural gas collars, and certain other crude
oil swaps, diesel swaps, gasoline swaps, natural gas swaps and platinum swaps that do not qualify as cash flow hedges for accounting
purposes as they are determined not to be highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows associated with crude oil purchases
and gasoline and diesel sales at the Company’s Superior refinery.
The Company recorded the following gains (losses) in its consolidated statements of operations for the years ended
December 31, 2015 and 2014 related to its derivative instruments not designated as hedges (in millions):
Type of Derivative
Specialty products segment:
Natural gas swaps
Platinum swaps
Fuel products segment:
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis swaps
Crude oil options
Gasoline swaps
Gasoline crack spread swaps
Gasoline crack spread collars
Diesel swaps
Diesel crack spread swaps
Diesel percentage basis crack spread swaps
Diesel crack spread collars
Jet fuel swaps
Jet fuel crack spread swaps
Natural gas swaps
Total
Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Realized Gain
(Loss) on Derivative Instruments
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Unrealized Gain
(Loss) on Derivative Instruments
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
$
(10.7) $
(0.8)
$
1.1
—
(2.5) $
0.1
(67.6)
1.1
(3.2)
6.1
(20.0)
(5.5)
—
82.3
24.3
(0.1)
—
1.6
—
—
(48.5)
5.7
—
—
(2.2)
—
(0.4)
76.3
(3.6)
—
1.0
3.2
(0.1)
—
52.0
(7.8)
0.2
(0.3)
(0.7)
(4.3)
—
(68.7)
—
(4.5)
—
(1.6)
—
(1.3)
$
7.5
$
32.5
$
(39.4) $
126
(11.9)
(0.1)
(61.9)
0.1
—
—
10.1
—
—
71.5
4.5
—
(0.1)
0.7
—
—
12.9
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Derivative Positions — Specialty Products Segment
Natural Gas Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas purchases in its specialty products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average price
1,580,000
1,380,000
1,380,000
1,540,000
4,950,000
10,830,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.24
4.26
4.26
4.14
3.85
4.05
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas purchases in its specialty products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Second Quarter 2015
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Calendar Year 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average price
Natural Gas Collars
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
1,770,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,900,000
5,880,000
1,830,000
14,380,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.09
4.11
4.11
4.12
4.22
4.28
4.18
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas purchases in its specialty products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Natural Gas Collars by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
Average Bought
Call ($/MMBtu)
Average Sold Put
($/MMBtu)
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
180,000
180,000
180,000
60,000
600,000
$
$
$
$
$
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
$
$
$
$
4.25
$
3.89
3.89
3.89
3.89
3.89
127
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas purchases in its specialty products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Natural Gas Collars by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
Average Bought
Call ($/MMBtu)
Average Sold Put
($/MMBtu)
First Quarter 2015
Second Quarter 2015
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Calendar Year 2016
Total
Average price
240,000
240,000
240,000
200,000
600,000
1,520,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
$
$
$
$
$
4.25
$
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.85
3.89
3.84
Derivative Positions — Fuel Products Segment
Crude Oil Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
29,120
29,120
29,440
29,440
630,720
747,840
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
320
320
320
320
1,728
$
$
$
$
$
$
44.06
44.06
44.06
44.06
54.94
53.24
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products segment,
all of which are designated as cash flow hedges:
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
BPD
315,000
315,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
3,500
$
97.71
$
97.71
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Second Quarter 2015
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Calendar Year 2016
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
1,674,000
91,000
386,400
386,400
972,828
3,510,628
18,600
1,000
4,200
4,200
2,658
$
$
$
$
$
$
89.55
89.89
69.20
69.20
78.02
81.89
128
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil sales in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts
Barrels Sold
BPD
1,674,000
1,674,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
18,600
$
84.21
$
84.21
The Company has entered into crude oil basis swaps to mitigate the risk of future changes in pricing differentials between
LLS and NYMEX WTI. At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil basis swaps in its
fuel products segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average differential
182,000
182,000
184,000
184,000
732,000
Average
Differential to
NYMEX WTI
($/Bbl)
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
$
$
$
$
$
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
The Company has entered into crude oil basis swaps to mitigate the risk of future changes in pricing differentials between
WCS and NYMEX WTI. At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil basis swaps in
its fuel products segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average differential
91,000
91,000
92,000
92,000
365,000
731,000
Average
Differential to
NYMEX WTI
($/Bbl)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
(14.10)
(14.10)
(14.10)
(14.10)
(13.70)
(13.90)
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil basis swaps in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average differential
Barrels Purchased
BPD
118,000
118,000
Average
Differential to
NYMEX WTI
($/Bbl)
2,000
$
(22.40)
$
(22.40)
129
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Crude Oil Percentage Basis Swap Contracts
The Company has entered into derivative instruments to secure a percentage differential on WCS crude oil to NYMEX WTI.
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil percentage basis swaps in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Percentage Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Calendar Year 2017
Total
Average percentage
728,000
728,000
736,000
736,000
730,000
3,658,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
2,000
Fixed Percentage
of NYMEX WTI
(Average % of
WTI/Bbl)
73.5%
73.5%
73.5%
73.5%
73.0%
73.4%
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil percentage basis swaps in its fuel
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Percentage Basis Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Total
Average percentage
Crude Oil Option Contracts
184,000
184,000
368,000
2,000
2,000
Fixed Percentage
of NYMEX WTI
(Average % of
WTI/Bbl)
73.0%
73.0%
73.0%
During 2015, the Company entered into derivative instruments to mitigate the risk of future changes in the price of NYMEX
WTI crude oil. At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude oil call option purchases in its
fuel products segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Crude Oil Option Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
Gasoline Swap Contracts
350,000
350,000
Average Bought
Call ($/Bbl)
11,290
$
55.00
$
55.00
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products segment, all
of which are designated as cash flow hedges:
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Barrels Sold
BPD
315,000
315,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
3,500
$
$
109.68
109.68
130
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to gasoline purchases in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as hedges:
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Purchased
BPD
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
45,000
45,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
500
$
78.12
$
78.12
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as hedges:
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Gasoline Crack Spread Swap Contracts
Barrels Sold
BPD
45,000
45,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
500
$
111.72
$
111.72
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to gasoline crack spread sales in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Gasoline Crack Spread Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
Diesel Swap Contracts
Barrels Sold
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
873,000
873,000
9,593
$
$
8.98
8.98
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to diesel purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
BPD
1,449,000
1,449,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
16,100
$
105.78
$
105.78
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to diesel sales in its fuel products segment, none
of which are designated as hedges:
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Second Quarter 2015
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Calendar Year 2016
Total
Average price
Barrels Sold
BPD
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
1,449,000
91,000
322,000
322,000
915,000
3,099,000
16,100
1,000
3,500
3,500
2,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
116.27
117.92
95.04
95.04
104.32
108.38
131
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Diesel Percentage Basis Crack Spread Swap Contracts
The Company has entered into derivative instruments to secure a fixed percentage of gross profit on diesel in excess of the
floating value of NYMEX WTI crude oil. At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following diesel percentage basis crack
spread swap contracts in its fuel products segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Diesel Percentage Basis Crack Spread Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
Barrels Sold
BPD
Third Quarter 2015
Fourth Quarter 2015
Calendar Year 2016
Total
Average percentage
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts
414,000
414,000
1,647,000
2,475,000
4,500
4,500
4,500
Average % of
WTI/Bbl
33.2%
33.2%
31.7%
32.2%
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to jet fuel purchases in its fuel products segment,
none of which are designated as cash flow hedges:
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Barrels Purchased
BPD
180,000
180,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
2,000
$
100.91
$
100.91
At December 31, 2014, the Company had the following derivatives related to jet fuel sales in its fuel products segment, none
of which are designated as cash flow hedges:
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
First Quarter 2015
Total
Average price
Natural Gas Swap Contracts
Barrels Sold
BPD
180,000
180,000
Average Swap
($/Bbl)
2,000
$
$
115.65
115.65
At December 31, 2015, the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges:
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
MMBtu
$/MMBtu
First Quarter 2016
Second Quarter 2016
Third Quarter 2016
Fourth Quarter 2016
Total
Average price
Platinum Swap Contracts
603,000
603,000
606,000
790,000
2,602,000
$
$
$
$
$
3.01
2.99
3.03
3.02
3.01
At December 31, 2014, the Company had approximately 1,900 troy ounces of platinum swap contracts through 2015 in its
fuel products segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
132
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
9. Fair Value Measurements
The Company uses a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. Observable
inputs are from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s assumptions about the factors
market participants would use in valuing the asset or liability developed based upon the best information available in the
circumstances. These tiers include the following:
• Level 1 — inputs include observable unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities
• Level 2 — inputs include other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable
• Level 3 — inputs include unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to
develop its own assumptions
In determining fair value, the Company uses various valuation techniques and prioritizes the use of observable inputs. The
availability of observable inputs varies from instrument to instrument and depends on a variety of factors including the type of
instrument, whether the instrument is actively traded and other characteristics particular to the instrument. For many financial
instruments, pricing inputs are readily observable in the market, the valuation methodology used is widely accepted by market
participants and the valuation does not require significant management judgment. For other financial instruments, pricing inputs
are less observable in the marketplace and may require management judgment.
Recurring Fair Value Measurements
Derivative Assets and Liabilities
Derivative instruments are reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value. The Company’s
derivative instruments consist of over-the-counter (“OTC”) contracts, which are not traded on a public exchange. Substantially
all of the Company’s derivative instruments are with counterparties that have long-term credit ratings of at least Baa1 and BBB+
by Moody’s and S&P, respectively.
To estimate the fair values of the Company’s commodity derivative instruments, the Company uses the forward rate, the
strike price, contractual notional amounts, the risk free rate of return and contract maturity. To estimate the fair value of the
Company’s fixed-to-floating interest rate swap derivative instrument, the Company uses discounted cash flows, which use
observable inputs such as maturity and market interest rates. Various analytical tests are performed to validate the counterparty
data. The fair values of the Company’s derivative instruments are adjusted for nonperformance risk and creditworthiness of the
hedging entities through the Company’s credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”). The CVA is calculated at the transaction level
utilizing the fair value exposure at each payment date and applying a weighted probability of the appropriate survival and marginal
default percentages. The Company uses the counterparty’s marginal default rate and the Company’s survival rate when the Company
is in a net asset position at the payment date and uses the Company’s marginal default rate and the counterparty’s survival rate
when the Company is in a net liability position at the payment date. As a result of applying the applicable CVA at December 31,
2015, the Company’s net liability was reduced by approximately $1.2 million. As a result of applying the CVA at December 31,
2014, the Company’s net asset was increased by approximately $2.0 million and net liability was reduced by approximately $0.1
million.
Observable inputs utilized to estimate the fair values of the Company’s derivative instruments were based primarily on inputs
that are readily available in public markets or can be derived from information available in publicly quoted markets. Based on the
use of various unobservable inputs, principally non-performance risk, creditworthiness of the hedging entities and unobservable
inputs in the forward rate, the Company has categorized these derivative instruments as Level 3. Significant increases (decreases)
in any of those unobservable inputs in isolation would result in a significantly lower (higher) fair value measurement. The Company
believes it has obtained the most accurate information available for the types of derivative instruments it holds. See Note 8 for
further information on derivative instruments.
Pension Assets
Pension assets are reported at fair value in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At December 31, 2015, the
Company’s investments associated with its pension plan (as such term is hereinafter defined) primarily consisted of mutual funds.
The mutual funds are categorized as Level 2 because inputs used in their valuation are not quoted prices in active markets that are
indirectly observable and are valued at the NAV of shares in each fund held by the pension plan at quarter end as provided by the
third party administrator. Plan investments can be redeemed within a short time frame (10 or so business days), if requested. See
Note 12 for further information on pension assets.
133
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Liability Awards
Unit based compensation liability awards are awards that are expected to be settled in cash on their vesting dates, rather than
in equity units (“Liability Awards”). The Liability Awards are categorized as Level 1 because the fair value of the Liability Awards
is based on the Company’s quoted closing unit price as of each balance sheet date.
Renewable Identification Numbers Obligation
The Company’s RINs Obligation represents a liability for the purchase of RINs to satisfy the EPA requirement to blend
biofuels into the fuel products it produces pursuant to the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard. RINs are assigned to biofuels produced
in the U.S. as required by the EPA. The EPA sets annual quotas for the percentage of biofuels that must be blended into transportation
fuels consumed in the U.S., and as a producer of motor fuels from petroleum, the Company is required to blend biofuels into the
fuel products it produces at a rate that will meet the EPA’s annual quota. To the extent the Company is unable to blend biofuels at
that rate, it must purchase RINs in the open market to satisfy the annual requirement. The Company’s RINs Obligation is based
on the amount of RINs it must purchase net of amounts internally generated and the market price of those RINs as of the balance
sheet date. The RINs Obligation is categorized as Level 2 and is measured at fair value using the market approach based on quoted
prices from an independent pricing service.
In October 2014, the EPA granted the Company’s Shreveport and San Antonio refineries a “small refinery exemption” under
the RFS for the full year 2013, as provided for under the Clean Air Act. The EPA determined that for the full year 2013, compliance
with the RFS would represent a “disproportionate economic hardship” for these two refineries. As a result of the exemption, the
Company sold all excess RINs related to these refineries for a gain of $18.2 million, net of cost to generate, recorded in cost of
sales for the year ended December 31, 2014, in the consolidated statements of operations.
For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company sold approximately 89 million RINs and 31 million RINS,
respectively, for a gain of $55.4 million and $14.5 million, respectively, net of cost to generate, recorded in cost of sales in the
consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company had a RINs Obligation of approximately
125 million RINs and 87 million RINs, respectively, which resulted in RINs expense for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, of approximately $94.2 million and $23.9 million, respectively.
134
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Hierarchy of Recurring Fair Value Measurements
The Company’s recurring assets and liabilities measured at fair value at December 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows (in
millions):
Assets:
Derivative assets:
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis
swaps
Gasoline swaps
Diesel swaps
Diesel crack spread swaps
Jet fuel swaps
Natural gas swaps
Natural gas collars
Platinum swaps
Interest rate swaps
Total derivative assets
Pension plan investments
Total recurring assets at fair
value
Liabilities:
Derivative liabilities:
Crude oil swaps
Crude oil basis swaps
Crude oil percentage basis
swaps
Crude oil options
Gasoline swaps
Gasoline crack spread swaps
Diesel swaps
Natural gas swaps
Natural gas collars
Total derivative liabilities
RINs Obligation
Liability Awards
Total recurring liabilities at fair
value
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Total
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Total
$
— $
—
— $
—
— $
—
— $
—
— $
—
— $
—
(89.8) $
0.8
(89.8)
0.8
$
$
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.4
47.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
47.5
0.2
49.4
(0.2)
13.5
97.0
4.5
2.7
(7.2)
(0.5)
(0.1)
2.5
23.2
—
(0.2)
13.5
97.0
4.5
2.7
(7.2)
(0.5)
(0.1)
2.5
23.2
49.6
0.4
$
47.1
$
— $
47.5
$
0.2
$
49.4
$
23.2
$
72.8
— $
— $
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(88.4)
—
(5.2) $
(0.3)
(5.2) $
(0.3)
(6.7)
(0.3)
—
(4.3)
—
(16.2)
(0.9)
(33.9)
—
—
(6.7)
(0.3)
—
(4.3)
—
(16.2)
(0.9)
(33.9)
(88.4)
—
— $
— $
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(4.7)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(16.3)
—
$
5.0
—
—
—
3.8
—
(9.0)
(4.9)
(0.5)
(5.6)
—
—
5.0
—
—
—
3.8
—
(9.0)
(4.9)
(0.5)
(5.6)
(16.3)
(4.7)
$
— $
(88.4) $
(33.9) $ (122.3) $
(4.7) $
(16.3) $
(5.6) $
(26.6)
135
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The table below sets forth a summary of net changes in fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial assets and liabilities
for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
Fair value at January 1,
Realized gain on derivative instruments
Unrealized loss on derivative instruments
Interest income, net
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
Settlements
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
Fair value at December 31,
Total loss included in net loss attributable to changes in unrealized loss relating to financial
assets and liabilities held as of December 31,
Derivative Instruments, Net
For the Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
$
$
17.6
(8.1)
(39.5)
(0.5)
(7.3)
3.9
—
(33.9) $
(54.8)
(43.8)
(0.6)
(0.8)
114.2
3.4
—
17.6
(39.5) $
(0.6)
All settlements from derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges and deemed “effective” are included in sales for
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel derivatives, and cost of sales for crude oil derivatives in the consolidated statements of operations in
the period that the hedged cash flow occurs. Any “ineffectiveness” associated with these settlements from derivative instruments
designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in earnings in realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations. All settlements from derivative instruments designated as fair value hedges are accrued and recorded as
an adjustment to interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations. All settlements from derivative instruments not
designated as hedges are recorded in realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of operations.
See Note 8 for further information on derivative instruments.
Nonrecurring Fair Value Measurements
Certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis and are subject to fair value
adjustments in certain circumstances, such as when there is evidence of impairment. Assets and liabilities acquired in business
combinations are recorded at their fair value as of the date of acquisition.
The Company reviews for goodwill impairment annually on October 1 and whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate its carrying value may not be recoverable. The fair value of the reporting units is determined using the income approach.
The income approach focuses on the income-producing capability of an asset, measuring the current value of the asset by calculating
the present value of its future economic benefits such as cash earnings, cost savings, corporate tax structure and product offerings.
Value indications are developed by discounting expected cash flows to their present value at a rate of return that incorporates the
risk-free rate for the use of funds, the expected rate of inflation and risks associated with the reporting unit. These assets would
generally be classified within Level 3, in the event that the Company were required to measure and record such assets at fair value
within its consolidated financial statements.
The Company periodically evaluates the carrying value of long-lived assets to be held and used, including indefinite-lived
intangible assets and property plant and equipment, when events or circumstances warrant such a review. Fair value is determined
primarily using anticipated cash flows assumed by a market participant discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved
and these assets would generally be classified within Level 3, in the event that the Company was required to measure and record
such assets at fair value within its consolidated financial statements.
Estimated Fair Value of Financial Instruments
Cash
The carrying value of cash is considered to be representative of its fair value.
Debt
The estimated aggregate fair value of the Company’s senior notes defined as Level 1 was based upon quoted market prices
in an active market. The estimated aggregate fair value of the Company’s senior notes classified as Level 2 was based upon directly
observable inputs. The carrying value of borrowings, if any, under the Company’s revolving credit facility and capital lease
obligations approximate their fair values as determined by discounted cash flows and are classified as Level 3. The carrying value
136
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
of the related party note payable approximates its fair value due to the short-term maturity of this financial instrument. See Note
7 for further information on long-term debt.
The Company’s carrying and estimated fair value of the Company’s financial instruments, carried at adjusted historical cost,
at December 31, 2015 and 2014, were as follows (in millions):
Financial Instrument:
Senior notes
Senior notes
Revolving credit facility
Note payable - related party
Capital lease and other obligations
10. Partners’ Capital
Units Outstanding
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
Level
Fair Value
Carrying Value
Fair Value
Carrying Value
1
2
3
3
3
$
$
$
$
$
1,095.8
294.1
105.1
73.5
46.4
$
$
$
$
$
1,230.8
317.6
105.1
73.5
46.4
$
$
$
$
$
630.0
803.3
$
$
143.3
$
— $
43.6
$
606.6
885.3
143.3
—
43.6
Of the 75,884,400 common units outstanding at December 31, 2015, 59,623,920 common units were held by the public,
with the remaining 16,260,480 common units held by the Company’s affiliates.
Significant information regarding rights of the limited partners includes the following:
• Rights to receive 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 Company’s business. The general partner may consider
only the interests and factors that it desires and has no duty or obligation to give any consideration of any interests of the
Company’s limited partners. Limited partners have no right to elect the board of directors of the Company’s general
partner.
• The vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% 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 partner’s affiliates, that owns 20% or more
of any class of units outstanding cannot vote on any matter.
• The Company may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the approval of the limited partners.
• Limited partners may be required to sell their units to the general partner if at any time the general partner owns more
than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units.
Distributions and Incentive Distribution Rights
The Company’s general partner is entitled to incentive distributions if the amount it distributes to unitholders with respect
to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown below:
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
First Target Distribution
Second Target Distribution
Third Target Distribution
Thereafter
Total Quarterly
Distribution Per Common Unit
Target Amount
$0.45
up to $0.495
above $0.495 up to $0.563
above $0.563 up to $0.675
above $0.675
Marginal Percentage
Interest in Distributions
Unitholders
General Partner
98%
98%
85%
75%
50%
2%
2%
15%
25%
50%
The Company’s ability to make distributions is limited by its debt instruments. The revolving credit facility generally permits
the Company to make cash distributions to unitholders as long as immediately after giving effect to such a cash distribution the
Company has availability under the revolving credit facility at least the greater of (i) 15% of the Borrowing Base (as defined in
the credit agreement) then in effect and (ii) $70.0 million. Further, the revolving credit facility contains one springing financial
covenant which provides that only if the Company’s availability under the revolving credit facility falls below the greater of
137
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
(a) 12.5% of the Borrowing Base (as defined in the credit agreement) then in effect and (b) $45.0 million, the Company will be
required to maintain as of the end of each fiscal quarter a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of at
least 1.0 to 1.0. The indentures governing the 2021 Notes, 2022 Notes and 2023 Notes provide that if the Company’s fixed charge
coverage ratio (as defined in the indentures) for the most recently ended four full fiscal quarters is not less than 1.75 to 1.0,
the Company will be permitted to pay distributions to its unitholders in an amount equal to available cash from operating surplus
(each as defined in the Company’s partnership agreement) with respect to its preceding fiscal quarter, subject to certain customary
adjustments described in the indentures. If the Company’s fixed charge coverage ratio is less than 1.75 to 1.0, the Company will
be able to pay distributions to its unitholders up to an amount equal to (i) a $225.0 million basket for the 2021 Notes, (ii) a $210.0
million basket for the 2022 Notes and (iii) a $225.0 million basket for the 2023 Notes, subject to certain customary
adjustments described in the indentures.
The Company’s distribution policy is as defined in its partnership agreement. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014
and 2013, the Company made distributions of $224.6 million, $210.2 million and $201.6 million, respectively, to its partners. For
the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the general partner was allocated $16.8 million, $15.4 million and $14.7
million, respectively, in incentive distribution rights.
Public Offerings of Common Units
During 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company completed the following marketed public offerings of its common units (in
millions except unit and per unit data):
Closing Date
Number of
Common
Units Offered
Price
per Unit
Net
Proceeds (1)
General Partner
Contribution (2)
Underwriting
Discount
January 8, 2013
5,750,000 (3)
$ 31.81
April 1, 2013
6,037,500 (4)
$ 37.50
$
$
175.2
217.3
$
$
3.8
4.6
$
$
7.4
9.1
March 13, 2015
6,000,000
$ 26.75
$
153.9
$
3.3
$
6.4
Use of Proceeds
Net proceeds were used to
repay borrowings under the
revolving credit facility and for
general partnership purposes.
Net proceeds were used for
general partnership purposes.
Net proceeds were used to
redeem a portion of the 2020
Notes and to repay borrowings
under the revolving credit
facility.
(1) Proceeds are net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but before the general partner’s capital contribution.
(2) The Company’s general partner contributions were made to retain its 2% general partner interest.
(3)
(4)
Includes the full exercise of the overallotment option of 750,000 common units which closed concurrently with the 5,000,000
firm units on January 8, 2013.
Includes the full exercise of the overallotment option of 787,500 common units which closed on April 4, 2013.
On March 10, 2014, the Company entered into an Equity Placement Agreement with various sales agents under which the
Company may issue and sell, from time to time, common units representing limited partner interests, having an aggregate offering
price of up to $300.0 million through one or more sales agents. The Equity Placement Agreement provides the Company the right,
but not the obligation, to sell common units in the future, at prices the Company deems appropriate. These sales, if any, will be
made pursuant to the terms of the Equity Placement Agreement between the Company and the sales agents. The net proceeds from
any sales under this agreement will be used for general partnership purposes, which may include, among other things, repayment
of indebtedness, working capital, capital expenditures and acquisitions. The Company’s general partner contributed its proportionate
capital contribution to retain its 2% general partner interest. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company sold
432,167 and 134,955, respectively, common units under the Equity Placement Agreement for net proceeds of $10.2 million and
$3.6 million, respectively. Underwriting discounts for 2015 and 2014 totaled $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively, and the
Company’s general partner contributed $0.2 million and $0.1 million, respectively, to maintain its general partner interest.
138
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
11. Unit-Based Compensation
The Company’s general partner originally adopted a Long-Term Incentive Plan on January 24, 2006, which was amended
and restated effective December 10, 2015 (“LTIP”), for its employees, consultants and directors and its affiliates who perform
services for the Company. The LTIP 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 3,883,960 common units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the LTIP. Units withheld
to satisfy the Company’s general partner’s tax withholding obligations are available for delivery pursuant to other awards. The
LTIP is administered by the compensation committee of the Company’s general partner’s board of directors.
Non-employee directors of the Company’s general partner have been granted phantom units under the terms of the LTIP as
part of their director compensation package related to fiscal years 2013 and 2014. These phantom units have a four year service
period 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. In
addition, the recipients have DERs on these phantom units from the date of grant.
For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, named executive officers and certain employees were awarded phantom
units under the terms of the LTIP, as part of the Company’s achievement of specified levels of financial performance in the fiscal
year. These phantom units are subject to time-vesting requirements whereby 25% of the units vest during the performance period,
and the remainder will vest ratably over the next three years on each December 31. 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 common units on the grant date to calculate the fair value and related compensation
cost of the phantom units. The Company amortizes this compensation cost to partners’ capital and general and administrative
expense in the consolidated statements of operations using the straight-line method over the service period, as it expects these
units to fully vest.
Liability Awards are awards that are expected to be settled in cash on their vesting dates, rather than in equity units. Phantom
unit Liability Awards are recorded in accrued salaries, wages and benefits in the consolidated balance sheets based on the vested
portion of the fair value of the awards on the balance sheet date. The fair value of Liability Awards are updated at each balance
sheet date and changes in the fair values of the vested portions of the awards are recorded as increases or decreases to compensation
expense within general and administrative expense in the consolidated statements of operations. As a result of the amendment and
restatement of the LTIP on December 10, 2015, all Liability Awards were modified to value the awards based upon the closing
unit price on that date. This modification did not affect the remaining service period.
A summary of the Company’s non-vested phantom units as of December 31, 2015, and the changes during the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, are presented below:
Non-vested at January 1, 2013
Granted
Vested
Forfeited
Non-vested at December 31, 2013
Granted
Vested
Forfeited
Non-vested at December 31, 2014
Granted
Vested
Forfeited
Non-vested at December 31, 2015
Number of
Phantom Units
Weighted-Average
Grant Date
Fair Value
835,927
483,044
(276,115)
(354,600)
688,256
477,527
(280,263)
(383,400)
502,120
343,533
(321,741)
(103,188)
420,724
$
$
$
$
27.57
27.73
24.22
30.60
23.70
25.97
23.72
25.59
26.48
21.70
23.54
23.94
24.27
For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, compensation expense of $7.5 million, $5.5 million and $4.8
million, respectively, was recognized in the consolidated statements of operations related to vested phantom unit grants, including
139
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
$5.0 million, $2.5 million and $1.6 million, attributable to Liability Awards for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and
2013, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, there was a total of $9.6 million and $12.2 million, respectively of
unrecognized compensation costs related to nonvested phantom unit grants, including $10.5 million, attributable to Liability
Awards for the year ended December 31, 2014. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of
approximately 3 years. The total fair value of phantom units vested during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013,
was $7.0 million, $6.7 million and $6.7 million, respectively.
12. Employee Benefit Plans
Defined Contribution Plan
The Company has a domestic defined contribution plan administered by its general partner for (i) all full-time employees
that are eligible to participate in the plan (“401(k) Plan”). Participants in the 401(k) Plan are allowed to contribute 1% to 70% of
their pre-tax earnings to the plan, subject to government imposed limitations. The Company matches 100% of each 1% of eligible
compensation contributed by the participant up to 4% and 50% of each additional 1% of eligible compensation contributed up to
6%, for a maximum contribution by the Company of 5% of eligible compensation contributed per participant. The plan also includes
a profit-sharing component for eligible employees. Contributions under the profit-sharing component are determined by the board
of directors of the Company’s general partner and are discretionary. The funding policy is consistent with funding requirements
of applicable laws and regulations.
The Company recorded the following 401(k) Plan matching contribution and profit sharing expenses in the consolidated
statement of operations for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 (in millions):
401(k) Plan matching contribution expense
Profit sharing expense
Defined Benefit Pension Plan
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
$
$
5.9
$
— $
5.4
1.2
$
$
4.1
0.9
The Company has domestic noncontributory defined benefit plans for those salaried employees as well as those employees
represented by either the United Steelworkers (“USW”) or the International Union of Operating Engineers (“IUOE”); who (i) were
formerly employees of Penreco and became employees of the Company as a result of the acquisition of Penreco on January 3,
2008 (“Penreco Pension Plan”), (ii) were formerly employees of Murphy Oil Corporation (“Murphy Oil”) represented by the IUOE
and who became employees of the Company as a result of the acquisition of the Superior refinery on September 30, 2011 (the
“Superior Pension Plan”) or (iii) were formerly employees of Montana Refining and who became employees of the Company as
a result of the Montana Acquisition on October 1, 2012 (the “Montana Pension Plan” and together with the Penreco Pension Plan
and the Superior Pension Plan, the “Pension Plan”). During 2015, the Company made contributions of $1.5 million to its Pension
Plan and expects to make contributions in 2016 of approximately $1.9 million to its Pension Plan.
Under the Penreco Pension Plan, benefits are based primarily on years of service for USW and IUOE represented employees
and the employee’s final 60 months’ average compensation for salaried employees. In 2009, the Company amended the Penreco
Pension Plan, which curtailed Penreco employees from accumulating additional benefits subsequent to December 31, 2009.
Under the Superior Pension Plan, benefits are based primarily on years of service for IUOE represented employees and the
employee’s three highest consecutive calendar years of compensation within the last 10 years of service. Effective July 1, 2012,
the Company amended the Superior Pension Plan, which curtailed Superior employees from accumulating additional benefits
subsequent to December 31, 2012.
Under the Montana Pension Plan, benefits are based primarily on years of service and the employees’ 36 months’ highest
average compensation for salaried employees. Effective October 1, 2012, the date of the Montana Acquisition, the Company
amended the Montana Pension Plan, which curtailed only the Montana salaried employees from accumulating additional benefits
subsequent to October 31, 2012. Effective August 31, 2015, the Company again amended the Montana Pension Plan, which curtailed
the collective bargaining employees from accumulating additional benefits subsequent to December 31, 2015. As a result, the
Company recorded a $0.9 million curtailment gain for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Defined Benefit Other Plans
The Company also has domestic contributory defined benefit post-retirement medical plans and contributory life insurance
plans for (i) those salaried employees, as well as those employees represented by either the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(“IBT”), USW or IUOE, who were formerly employees of Penreco and who became employees of the Company as a result of the
140
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008 (“Penreco Other Plan”) or (ii) employees represented by the IUOE, who were formerly
employees of Murphy Oil and who became employees of the Company as a result of the acquisition of the Superior refinery on
September 30, 2011 (“Superior Other Plan” and together with the Penreco Other Plan, the “Other Plan”). The funding policy is
consistent with funding requirements of applicable laws and regulations.
Effective 2009, the Company amended the Penreco Other Plan, which curtailed employees from accumulating additional
benefits subsequent to February 28, 2009. Effective July 1, 2012, the Company amended the Superior Other Plan, which curtailed
Superior employees from accumulating additional benefits subsequent to December 31, 2012.
The long-term accrued benefit obligation recognized in the consolidated balance sheets for the Penreco Other Plan was $0.2
million and $0.3 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In addition, other post-retirement benefit income related
to this plan was $0.4 million for 2015. There was no other post-retirement benefit income (cost) related to this plan for 2014.
All information presented below has been adjusted for these curtailments for the Pension Plan. The change in the benefit
obligations, change in the plan assets, funded status and amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as follows
(in millions):
Change in projected benefit obligation:
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
Service cost
Interest cost
Plan curtailment
Benefits paid
Actuarial (gain) loss
Administrative expense
Benefit obligation at end of year
Change in plan assets:
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
Benefit payments
Actual return on assets
Administrative expense
Employer contribution
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
Funded status — benefit obligation in excess of plan assets
Reconciliation of amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets:
Accrued benefit obligation, long-term
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
Net amount recognized at end of year
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
Pension Plan
69.3
$
0.5
2.6
(0.9)
(2.6)
(8.6)
—
60.3
49.6
(2.6)
(1.0)
—
1.5
$
$
$
47.5
(12.8) $
(12.8) $
6.8
6.8
(6.0) $
57.2
0.4
2.6
—
(2.5)
11.7
(0.1)
69.3
45.8
(2.5)
4.9
(0.1)
1.5
49.6
(19.7)
(19.7)
11.9
11.9
(7.8)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Pension Plan was $60.3 million and $68.4 million as of December 31, 2015 and
2014, respectively. Selected information for the Company’s pension plans with an accumulated benefit obligation in excess of
plan assets were as follows (in millions):
Accumulated benefit obligation
Fair value of plan assets
141
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
60.3
47.5
$
$
68.4
49.6
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Selected information for the Company’s Pension Plan with projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets were as
follows (in millions):
Projected benefit obligation
Fair value of plan assets
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
$
$
60.3
47.5
$
$
69.3
49.6
The components of net periodic pension cost (income) for 2015, 2014 and 2013 were as follows (in millions):
Service cost
Interest cost
Expected return on assets
Amortization of net loss
Curtailment gain recognized
Net periodic benefit cost (income)
Pension Plan
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
2015
$
0.5
2.6
(3.3)
0.8
(0.9)
(0.3) $
0.4
2.6
(3.1)
0.3
—
0.2
$
$
0.4
2.4
(2.9)
0.8
—
0.7
$
$
The components of changes recognized in other comprehensive (income) loss for the Pension Plan for 2015, 2014 and 2013
were as follows (in millions):
Pension Plan
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
Changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other
comprehensive (income) loss:
Net (gain) loss
Amounts recognized as a component of net periodic benefit cost:
Amortization or settlement recognition of net loss
Total recognized in other comprehensive (income) loss
$
$
(4.3) $
9.9
$
(0.8)
(5.1) $
(0.3)
9.6
$
(8.8)
(0.8)
(9.6)
The portion relating to the Pension Plan classified in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) includes losses of $6.8
million and $11.9 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In 2016, the estimated amount that will be amortized
from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) includes a net loss of $0.4 million for the Pension Plan.
For the Pension Plan, the Company uses a corridor approach to amortize actuarial gains and losses. Under this approach,
net actuarial gains or losses in excess of ten percent of the larger of the projected benefit obligation or the fair value of plan assets
are amortized on a straight-line basis. The period of amortization is the average remaining service of active participants who are
expected to receive benefits under the plans.
All pension plans have a December 31 measurement date. The significant weighted average assumptions used to determine
the benefit obligations for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, were as follows:
Pension Plan:
Discount rate for Penreco Pension Plan
Discount rate for Superior Pension Plan
Discount rate for Montana Pension Plan
Rate of compensation increase for Montana Pension Plan
142
Benefit Obligations
Assumptions
2015
2014
4.30%
4.27%
4.21%
N/A
3.92%
3.86%
4.13%
3.00%
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
The significant weighted average assumptions used to determine the net periodic benefit cost (income) for the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were as follows:
Pension Plan:
Discount rate for Penreco Pension Plan
Discount rate for Superior Pension Plan
Discount rate for Montana Pension Plan
Expected return on plan assets for Penreco Pension Plan (1)
Expected return on plan assets for Superior Pension Plan (1)
Expected return on plan assets for Montana Pension Plan (1)
Rate of compensation increase for Montana Pension Plan
Net Periodic Benefit Cost (Income)
Assumptions
2015
2014
2013
3.92%
3.86%
4.13%
6.75%
6.75%
6.75%
3.00%
4.78%
4.66%
4.97%
6.75%
6.75%
6.75%
3.00%
3.86%
3.75%
4.03%
6.75%
6.75%
6.75%
3.00%
(1) The Company considered the historical returns, the future expectation for returns for each asset class and fair value of the
plan assets, as well as the target asset allocation of the Pension Plan portfolio which was developed in accordance with the
Company’s Statement of Investment Policy, to develop the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets.
Investment Policy
The Defined Benefit Plan Investment Committee (the “Investment Committee”) is responsible for the overall management
of the Pension Plan assets, and its responsibilities encompass establishing the investment strategies and policies, monitoring the
management of plan assets, reviewing the asset allocation mix on a regular basis, monitoring the performance of the Pension Plan
assets to determine whether the investments objectives are met and guidelines followed and taking the appropriate action if
objectives are not followed. The Company uses different investment managers with various asset management objectives to
eliminate any significant concentration of risk. The Investment Committee believes there are no significant concentrations of risks
associated with the investment assets. The Company’s investment manager will assist in the continual assessment of assets and
the potential reallocation of certain investments and will evaluate the selection of investment managers for the Pension Plan assets
based on such factors as organizational stability, depth of resources, experience, investment strategy and process, performance
expectations and fees.
Long-term strategic investment objectives utilize a diversified mix of equity and fixed income securities to preserve the
funded status of the trusts, and balance risk and return in relationship to the respective liabilities. The primary investment strategy
currently employed is a dynamic de-risking strategy that periodically rebalances among various investment categories depending
on the current funded position and maximizes the effectiveness of the Pension Plan asset allocation strategy. This program is
designed to actively move from return-seeking investments (such as equities) toward liability-hedging investments (such as fixed
income) as funding levels improve.
Effective June 2013, all of the Pension Plan assets were invested in a Master Trust. Trust assets in the Pension Plan are
invested subject to the policy restriction that the average quality of the fixed income portfolio must be rated at least investment
grade by both Moody’s and S&P. These assets are invested in accordance with prudent expert standards as mandated by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The Pension Plan’s target asset allocation is currently comprised of the
following:
Asset Class
Domestic equities
Foreign equities
Fixed income
Investment Fund Strategies
Range of
Asset Allocation
15–25%
15–25%
55–65%
Target
Allocation
20%
20%
60%
Domestic equity funds include funds that invest in U.S. common and preferred stocks. Foreign equity funds invest in securities
issued by companies listed on international stock exchanges. Certain funds have value and growth objectives and managers may
143
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
attempt to profit from security mispricing in equity markets to meet these objectives. Short term investments (including commercial
paper, certificates of deposits and government repurchase agreements) and derivatives may be used for hedging purposes to limit
exposure to various risk factors.
Fixed income funds invest in U.S. dollar-denominated, investment grade bonds, including U.S. Treasury and government
agency securities, corporate bonds and mortgage and asset-backed securities. These funds may also invest in any combination of
non-investment grade bonds, non-U.S. dollar-denominated bonds and bonds issued by issuers in emerging capital markets. Short
term investments (including commercial paper, certificates of deposits and government repurchase agreements) and derivatives
may be used for hedging purposes to limit exposure to various risk factors.
The Company’s Pension Plan asset allocations, as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, by asset category, are as follows:
Cash and cash equivalents
Domestic equities
Foreign equities
Fixed income
2015
2014
1%
20%
19%
60%
100%
—%
20%
19%
61%
100%
At December 31, 2015, the Company’s investments associated with its Pension Plan (as such term is hereinafter defined)
primarily consisted of (i) cash and cash equivalents and (ii) mutual funds. The mutual funds are categorized as Level 2 because
inputs used in their valuation are not quoted prices in active markets that are indirectly observable and are valued at the net asset
value (“NAV”) of shares in each fund held by the Pension Plan at quarter end as provided by the third party administrator. See
Note 9 for the definition of Levels 1, 2 and 3. The Company’s Pension Plan assets measured at fair value at December 31, 2015
and 2014, were as follows (in millions):
Cash and cash equivalents
Domestic equities
Foreign equities
Fixed income
Fair Value of Pension Assets at December 31,
2015
2014
Level 1
Level 2
Level 1
Level 2
$
$
0.4
—
—
—
0.4
$
$
— $
9.6
9.2
28.3
47.1
$
0.2
—
—
—
0.2
$
$
—
10.0
9.4
30.0
49.4
The following benefit payments for the Pension Plan, which reflect expected future service, as appropriate, are expected to
be paid in the years indicated as of December 31, 2015 (in millions):
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021 to 2025
Total
Pension
Benefits
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
17.6
32.8
$
$
144
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
13. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
The table below sets forth a summary of changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) by component for the
year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
Accumulated other comprehensive loss at December 31, 2013
$
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive
loss
Net current period other comprehensive income (loss)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at December 31,
2014
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss)
Net current period other comprehensive income (loss)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at December 31,
2015
Defined
Benefit
Pension And
Retiree Health
Benefit Plans
Foreign
Currency
Translation
Adjustment
Total
Derivatives
(51.4) $
114.2
(1.9) $
(9.9)
(0.1) $
(0.5)
(37.0)
77.2
25.8
(7.3)
(12.1)
(19.4)
0.3
(9.6)
(11.5)
4.3
0.4
4.7
—
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.6)
—
(0.6)
(53.4)
103.8
(36.7)
67.1
13.7
(3.6)
(11.7)
(15.3)
$
6.4
$
(6.8) $
(1.2) $
(1.6)
The table below sets forth a summary of reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, (in millions):
Components of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
2015
2014
Location of
Gain (Loss)
Derivative gains (losses) reflected in gross profit
Amortization of defined benefit pension benefit plans:
Amortization of net loss
$
$
$
$
179.4
(167.3)
12.1
$
$
(9.0) Sales
46.0 Cost of sales
37.0 Total
(0.8) $
(0.8) $
(1)
(0.3)
(0.3) Total
(1) This accumulated other comprehensive loss component is included in the computation of net periodic pension cost. See Note
12 for additional information.
145
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
14. Income Taxes
The Company conducts certain activities through wholly-owned subsidiaries that are corporations which in certain
circumstances are subject to federal, state and local income taxes. On December 31, 2015, ADF Holdings, Inc. converted to ADF
Holdings, LLC and Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. converted to Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, LLC. Both ADF Holdings, LLC
and Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, LLC have elected to be treated as pass-through entities for tax purposes. As a result, the activities
of Anchor will be included in the earnings of the Company going forward and generally the Company will not be subject to federal
and state income taxes. As of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the components of federal and state income tax expense are
summarized as follows (in millions):
Current expense:
Federal
State
Total
Deferred expense (benefit):
Federal
State
Total
Total income tax expense (benefit)
2015
December 31,
2014
2013
$
$
$
$
$
0.1
—
0.1
$
$
(26.5) $
(2.0)
(28.5) $
(28.4) $
0.2
0.2
0.4
$
$
(1.5) $
0.3
(1.2) $
(0.8) $
—
0.4
0.4
—
—
—
0.4
A reconciliation of effective tax rate to the U.S. statutory rate attributable to operations for December 31, 2015, 2014 and
2013 is as follows:
Federal income tax rate
Partnership earnings not subject to tax
State income taxes, net of federal income tax effect
State tax rate change
Impact of non-deductible goodwill
Anchor LLC conversions
Other items, net
Effective tax rate
2015
December 31,
2014
2013
35.0 %
(13.8)%
0.6 %
0.2 %
(5.0)%
0.3 %
(0.4)%
16.9 %
35.0 %
(22.4)%
(0.4)%
— %
(11.5)%
— %
— %
0.7 %
35.0 %
(35.0)%
11.4 %
— %
— %
— %
(1.1)%
10.3 %
146
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Deferred Taxes
Deferred taxes result from the temporary differences between financial reporting carrying amounts and the tax basis of
existing assets and liabilities. The table below summarizes the principal components of the deferred tax assets (liabilities) as follows
as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):
Deferred income tax assets:
Inventory
Net operating loss carryforwards
Total deferred income tax assets
Deferred income tax liabilities:
Intangible assets
Unrealized gains
Property, plant and equipment
Total deferred income tax liabilities
Net deferred income tax liability
December 31,
2015
2014
— $
0.8
0.8
$
(0.1) $
(0.5)
(2.0)
(2.6) $
2.3
3.7
6.0
(22.0)
—
(14.0)
(36.0)
(1.8) $
(30.0)
$
$
$
$
$
As a result of the Company’s analysis, management has determined that the Company does not have any uncertain tax
positions. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had tax loss carryforwards of approximately $2.1 million, which are expected
to be utilized prior to expiration in 2035. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $0.8 million deferred tax assets arising from
net operating loss carryforwards. The Company’s federal and state tax returns remain subject to examination by taxing authorities
for three years.
15. Earnings per Unit
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per limited partner unit for the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 (in millions, except unit and per unit data):
Numerator for basic and diluted earnings per limited partner unit:
Net income (loss)
Less:
General partner’s interest in net income (loss)
General partner’s incentive distribution rights
Non-vested share based payments
Net loss available to limited partners
Denominator for basic and diluted earnings per limited partner unit:
Basic weighted average limited partner units outstanding
Diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding (1)
Limited partners’ interest basic and diluted net loss per unit
$
$
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
$
(139.4) $
(112.2) $
3.5
(2.8)
16.8
—
(153.4) $
(2.2)
15.4
—
(125.4) $
0.1
14.7
0.2
(11.5)
74,896,096
74,896,096
69,671,827
69,671,827
(2.05) $
(1.80) $
67,938,784
67,938,784
(0.17)
(1) Total diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding excludes 0.4 million, 0.2 million and 0.2 million potentially
dilutive phantom units for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
147
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
16. Transactions with Related Parties
During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company had product sales to related parties owned by a
limited partner, excluding the transactions discussed below, of $12.0 million, $9.1 million and $9.7 million, respectively. Trade
accounts and other receivables from related parties at December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $0.4 million and $1.2 million, respectively.
The Company also had purchases from related parties owned by a limited partner, excluding transactions discussed below, during
the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 of $21.8 million, $41.1 million and $9.0 million, respectively. Accounts
payable to related parties, excluding accounts payable related to the transactions discussed below, at December 31, 2015 and 2014,
were $2.3 million and $4.3 million, respectively.
The Company has a crude oil supply agreement with Legacy Resources, the Master Crude Oil Purchase and Sale Agreement.
Legacy Resources is owned in part by one of the Company’s general partners, the Company’s executive vice chairman of the board
of the Company’s general partner, F. William Grube. No crude oil is currently being purchased by the Company under this agreement.
During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company had no crude oil purchases from Legacy Resources. During the years
ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company had crude oil purchases of $0.8 million and $1.2 million, respectively, from
Legacy Resources under spot agreements. The Company had no accounts payable to Legacy Resources at December 31, 2015 and
December 31, 2014.
Nicholas J. Rutigliano, a former member of the board of directors of the Company’s general partner who retired in September
2014, founded Tobias Insurance Group, Inc. (“Tobias”), a commercial insurance brokerage business, which was acquired by
Assured Partners, LLC. Mr. Rutigliano continues to serve as president of Tobias. Tobias has historically placed the Company’s
directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. There were no premiums paid to Tobias for the year ended December 31, 2015. The
total premiums paid to Tobias by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, were $0.7 million and $0.7
million, respectively. With the exception of its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance which were placed with this commercial
insurance brokerage company, the Company placed its insurance requirements with third parties during the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
The Company has a general services master services agreement with a third party construction company related to the
Montana refinery expansion project in which various construction related services were performed during 2015 and 2014. This
third party is related to refinery management. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company had capital
expenditures of $43.0 million, $29.0 million and $6.3 million, respectively, for construction related services. Accounts payable
under this contract at December 31, 2015 and 2014, were $10.0 million and $2.6 million, respectively.
During 2015, the Company entered into an agreement for logistic administration/support, general administrative management
and fiscal administration services with Monument Chemicals, Inc. (“Monument Chemical”). Monument Chemical is owned by a
limited partner and a member of the board of the Company’s general partner is a member of Monument Chemical’s management.
Under this agreement, Monument Chemical rents storage tanks in Belgium on the Company’s behalf and organizes delivery of
products to the Company’s customers. A commission is paid to Monument Chemical based on the sales value invoiced to the
Company’s customers. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company paid total commissions and general administrative
fees of $0.5 million. Accounts payable under this contract at December 31, 2015 were immaterial.
During the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company entered into various transactions with Dakota Prairie.
See Note 4 for further information on Dakota Prairie transactions.
On December 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with Heritage in which Heritage made an uncommitted
prepayment for the purchase of certain finished products and entered into an unsecured note payable with the Company as the
borrower. See Note 7 for further information on this agreement.
17. Segments and Related Information
a. Segment Reporting
The Company manages its business in multiple operating segments, which are grouped on the basis of similar product,
market and operating factors into the following reportable segments:
• Specialty Products. The specialty products segment produces a variety of lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, synthetic
lubricants and other products which are sold to customers who purchase these products primarily as raw material
components for basic automotive, industrial and consumer goods. Specialty products also include synthetic lubricants
used in manufacturing, mining and automotive applications.
• Fuel Products. The fuel products segment produces primarily gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and asphalt which are primarily
sold to customers located in the PADD 2, PADD 3 and PADD 4 areas within the U.S.
148
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
• Oilfield Services. The oilfield services segment markets its products and oilfield services including drilling fluids,
completion fluids and solids control services to the oil and gas industry.
During the fourth quarter 2014, the Company realigned its reportable segments for financial reporting purposes as a result
of the Anchor and SOS Acquisitions in 2014 resulting in a new segment, oilfield services. Prior to this change, Anchor and SOS
were reported as part of the specialty products segment. This reporting change did not impact the Company’s consolidated results.
The accounting policies of the reporting segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting
policies as disclosed in Note 2, except that the disaggregated financial results for the reporting segments have been prepared using
a management approach, which is consistent with the basis and manner in which management internally disaggregates financial
information for the purposes of assisting internal operating decisions. The Company accounts for intersegment sales and transfers
at cost plus a specified mark-up. The Company evaluates performance based upon Adjusted EBITDA. The Company defines
Adjusted EBITDA for any period as: (1) net income (loss) plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) income taxes; (c) depreciation and
amortization; (d) unrealized losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities; (e) realized gains under derivative
instruments excluded from the determination of net income (loss); (f) non-cash equity based compensation expense and other non-
cash items (excluding items such as accruals of cash expenses in a future period or amortization of a prepaid cash expense) that
were deducted in computing net income (loss); (g) debt refinancing fees, premiums and penalties and (h) all extraordinary, unusual
or non-recurring items of gain or loss, or revenue or expense; minus (3)(a) unrealized gains from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities; (b) realized losses under derivative instruments excluded from the determination of net income and (c) other
non-recurring expenses and unrealized items that reduced net income (loss) for a prior period, but represent a cash item in the
current period.
The Company manages its assets on a total company basis, not by segment. Therefore, management does not review any
asset information by segment and, accordingly, the Company does not report asset information by segment.
149
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Reportable segment information is as follows (in millions):
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Year Ended December 31, 2015
Sales:
External customers
Intersegment sales
Total sales
Loss from unconsolidated
affiliates
Adjusted EBITDA
Reconciling items to net
loss:
Depreciation and
amortization
Realized loss on derivatives,
not reflected in net loss or
settled in a prior period
Impairment charges
Unrealized loss on
derivatives
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Non-cash equity based
compensation and other
items
Income tax benefit
Net loss
Year Ended December 31, 2014
Sales:
External customers
Intersegment sales
Total sales
Loss from unconsolidated
affiliates
Adjusted EBITDA
Reconciling items to net
loss:
Depreciation and
amortization
Realized gain (loss) on
derivatives, not reflected in
net loss or settled in a prior
period
Impairment charges
Unrealized loss on
derivatives
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Non-cash equity based
compensation and other
items
Income tax benefit
Net loss
Specialty
Products
Fuel
Products
Oilfield
Services
Combined
Segments
Eliminations
Consolidated
Total
1,367.8
3.9
1,371.7
$
$
2,562.5
39.1
2,601.6
$
$
— $
$
201.7
(61.1) $
$
81.9
282.5
—
282.5
$
$
(0.4) $
(25.9) $
4,212.8
43.0
4,255.8
$
$
(61.5) $
$
257.7
— $
(43.0)
(43.0) $
4,212.8
—
4,212.8
— $
— $
(61.5)
257.7
69.2
82.4
(3.0)
—
(7.0)
24.3
22.8
—
33.8
174.4
(10.0)
58.1
—
—
—
174.4
(10.0)
58.1
39.5
104.9
46.6
12.0
(28.4)
(139.4)
$
Specialty
Products
Fuel
Products
Oilfield
Services
Combined
Segments
Eliminations
Consolidated
Total
1,729.2
18.4
1,747.6
$
$
3,693.4
89.8
3,783.2
$
$
— $
$
220.8
(3.2) $
$
50.0
368.5
—
368.5
$
$
(0.2) $
$
35.1
5,791.1
108.2
5,899.3
$
$
(3.4) $
$
305.9
— $
(108.2)
(108.2) $
5,791.1
—
5,791.1
— $
— $
(3.4)
305.9
68.1
80.0
15.0
163.1
(1.9)
—
8.5
—
—
36.0
6.6
36.0
150
—
—
—
163.1
6.6
36.0
0.6
110.8
89.9
11.9
(0.8)
(112.2)
$
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Year Ended December 31, 2013
Sales:
External customers
Intersegment sales
Total sales
Loss from unconsolidated
affiliates
Adjusted EBITDA
Reconciling items to net
income:
Depreciation and
amortization
Realized loss on
derivatives, not reflected in
net income or settled in a
prior period
Impairment charges
Unrealized gain on
derivatives
Interest expense
Debt extinguishment costs
Non-cash equity based
compensation and other
items
Income tax expense
Net income
b. Geographic Information
Specialty
Products
Fuel
Products
Oilfield
Services
Combined
Segments
Eliminations
Consolidated
Total
$
$
$
$
1,774.9
—
1,774.9
$
$
3,646.5
77.3
3,723.8
$
$
— $
$
194.5
(0.3) $
$
47.0
— $
—
— $
— $
— $
5,421.4
77.3
5,498.7
$
$
(0.3) $
$
241.5
— $
(77.3)
(77.3) $
5,421.4
—
5,421.4
— $
— $
(0.3)
241.5
66.6
67.1
(0.5)
10.5
(1.3)
—
—
—
—
133.7
(1.8)
10.5
—
—
—
133.7
(1.8)
10.5
(25.7)
96.8
14.6
9.5
0.4
3.5
$
International sales accounted for less than 10% of consolidated sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2015,
2014 and 2013. Substantially all of the Company’s long-lived assets are domestically located.
151
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
c. Product Information
The Company offers specialty products primarily in categories consisting of lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, packaged and
synthetic specialty products and other. Fuel products categories primarily consist of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt, heavy fuel
oils and other. All oilfield services products are consolidated in a standalone category. The following table sets forth the major
product category sales (in millions):
Specialty products:
Lubricating oils
Solvents
Waxes
Packaged and synthetic specialty products
Other
$
Total
Fuel products:
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Asphalt, heavy fuel oils and other
Total
Oilfield services:
Total
Consolidated sales
d. Major Customers
2015
Year Ended December 31,
2014
2013
575.6
302.0
136.9
316.6
36.7
1,367.8
1,047.1
894.8
149.6
471.0
2,562.5
13.7% $
7.2%
3.2%
7.5%
0.9%
32.5%
24.9%
21.2%
3.6%
11.1%
60.8%
748.4
485.2
144.1
313.5
38.0
1,729.2
1,443.1
1,197.4
199.3
853.6
3,693.4
12.9% $
8.4%
2.5%
5.4%
0.7%
29.9%
24.9%
20.7%
3.4%
14.7%
63.7%
848.8
511.7
141.0
233.6
39.8
1,774.9
1,409.4
1,259.2
191.4
786.5
3,646.5
15.7%
9.4%
2.6%
4.3%
0.7%
32.7%
26.0%
23.3%
3.5%
14.5%
67.3%
282.5
4,212.8
$
6.7%
100.0% $
368.5
5,791.1
6.4%
100.0% $
—
5,421.4
—%
100.0%
During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company had no customer that represented 10% or greater
of consolidated sales.
e. Major Suppliers
During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company had two suppliers that supplied approximately
52.2%, 45.9% and 54.1%, respectively, of its crude oil supply.
152
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
18. Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
The table below sets forth selected quarterly financial data for each of the last two fiscal years (in millions, except unit and
per unit data):
2015
Sales
Gross profit
Net income (loss)
Net income (loss) available to limited
partners
Limited partners’ interest basic and
diluted net income (loss) per unit
Weighted average limited partner
units outstanding — basic
Weighted average limited partner
units outstanding — diluted
2014
Sales
Gross profit
Net income (loss)
Net income (loss) available to limited
partners
Limited partners’ interest basic and
diluted net income (loss) per unit
Weighted average limited partner
units outstanding — basic
Weighted average limited partner
units outstanding — diluted
First
Quarter
Second
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Fourth
Quarter
Total (1)
$
$
$
1,018.6
195.2
23.8
19.1
$
1,156.2
202.7
2.5
$
1,140.0
164.8
(48.9)
$
898.0
31.9
(116.8)
4,212.8
594.6
(139.4)
(1.7)
(52.2)
(118.6)
(153.4)
0.27
$
(0.02) $
(0.68) $
(1.56) $
(2.05)
71,232,392
76,092,517
76,112,325
76,124,133
71,275,452
76,092,517
76,112,325
76,124,133
First
Quarter
Second
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Fourth
Quarter
Total (1)
$
1,341.0
$
1,434.9
$
1,675.8
$
1,339.4
$
5,791.1
124.8
(49.8)
(52.6)
99.0
(8.3)
(12.0)
182.6
9.4
5.4
123.3
(63.5)
(66.2)
529.7
(112.2)
(125.4)
$
(0.76) $
(0.17) $
0.08
$
(0.95) $
(1.80)
69,622,884
69,604,669
69,684,621
69,775,827
69,622,884
69,604,669
69,850,685
69,775,827
(1) The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year due to rounding.
19. Subsequent Events
On January 19, 2016, the Company declared a quarterly cash distribution of $0.685 per unit on all outstanding common units,
or approximately $57.4 million (including the general partner’s incentive distribution rights) in aggregate, for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015. The distribution was paid on February 12, 2016, to unitholders of record as of the close of business on February
2, 2016. This quarterly distribution of $0.685 per unit equates to $2.74 per unit, or approximately $229.6 million (including the
general partner’s incentive distribution rights) in aggregate on an annualized basis.
The fair value of the Company’s derivatives that were outstanding as of December 31, 2015, decreased by approximately
$9.0 million subsequent to December 31, 2015, to a net liability of approximately $38.0 million. The fair value of the Company’s
senior notes has decreased by approximately $455.0 million subsequent to December 31, 2015.
153
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As required by Rule 13a-15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as amended, we have evaluated,
under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial
officer, the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Our disclosure controls and procedures
are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file under the
Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal
financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and is recorded, processed, summarized
and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. Based upon the evaluation, our principal executive
officer and principal financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31,
2015 at the reasonable assurance level. See Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting included in Item 8
“Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
During the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer identified
a material weakness related to the design of management review controls related to the proper determination of the lower of cost
or market inventory calculation. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial
statements will not be prevented or detected in a timely basis. This control deficiency resulted in the reasonable possibility that
a material misstatement in the lower of cost or market inventory adjustment would not be prevented or detected in a timely basis.
This material weakness was identified and corrected prior to the completion of our consolidated financial statements included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Remediation Plan
The Audit Committee directed our management to prepare a remediation plan concerning the material weakness described
above. As a result, we remediated this material weakness by, among other things, implementing and modifying certain accounting
processes and procedures during the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, particularly those that involve our controls
surrounding the oversight and review of the lower of cost or market inventory calculation.
As of December 31, 2015, management has determined that, as a result of its remediation efforts, it no longer has a material
weakness in internal controls for the lower of cost or market inventory calculation.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.
154
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 limited partners and 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 partner’s 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 executive vice chairman of our general partner, 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, LLC Marketplace Rules (“NASDAQ Rules”), a listed limited
partnership like us is not required 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 partner’s seven
directors are “independent” as that term is defined in the 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 Rules and Exchange
Act standards. Our general partner’s independent directors as determined in accordance with those standards are: James S. Carter,
Robert E. Funk and George C. Morris III.
The officers of our general partner manage the day-to-day affairs of our business. Officers serve at the discretion of the board
of directors.
Directors and Executive Officers
The following table shows information regarding the directors and executive officers of Calumet GP, LLC as of February 29,
2016:
Name
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
F. William Grube
Timothy Go
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
George C. Morris III
Daniel J. Sajkowski
Amy M. Schumacher
Age
65
68
49
44
47
63
67
70
60
56
44
Position with Calumet GP, LLC
Chairman of the Board
Executive Vice Chairman
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Executive Vice President — Sales
Executive Vice President — Fuels Operations
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Each director’s biographical information set forth below includes the particular experience and qualifications that led the
board of directors to conclude that the director is qualified to serve in such capacity.
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. has served as the chairman of the board of our general partner since September 2005. Mr. Fehsenfeld
also served as the vice chairman of the board of our Predecessor from 1990 until our initial public offering. 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.
As co-founder of our Predecessor, Mr. Fehsenfeld has an extensive knowledge base regarding the Company’s operations
and has participated in all major strategic decision making for the Company and our Predecessor since their inception. In his role
as managing trustee of The Heritage Group, Mr. Fehsenfeld serves in lead executive roles, including the role of chairman and chief
155
executive officer, for a multitude of different companies within The Heritage Group, providing a breadth of experience in leadership
and management across a wide variety of industries, including energy. Since 2008, Mr. Fehsenfeld has served as chairman of the
board of directors of Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., a publicly-traded environmental services company which is owned in part by
The Heritage Group. Mr. Fehsenfeld is the father of Amy M. Schumacher, member of the board of directors of our general partner.
F. William Grube has served as the executive vice chairman of the board of our general partner since April 2015. From
January 2011 through April 2015, Mr. Grube served as chief executive officer and vice chairman of the board of our general partner.
From September 2005 through December 2010, Mr. Grube served as chief executive officer, president and director of our general
partner. Mr. Grube has also served as president and chief executive officer of our Predecessor from 1990 until our initial public
offering. From 1973 to 1989, Mr. Grube served as executive vice president of Rock Island Refining Corporation. Mr. Grube
received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his M.B.A. from Harvard University.
As co-founder of our Predecessor and through his role as prior chief executive officer, Mr. Grube possesses unique experience
relative to the management of the Company on a day-to-day basis over a significant time period and across all functional areas of
the Company. Mr. Grube has significant technical expertise in refining developed over the course of his career, with both the
Company and our Predecessor, as well as another refining company which specialized in the production of fuel products.
Timothy Go has served as chief executive officer of our general partner since January 2016. Prior to joining the Company,
Mr. Go served as vice president — operations of Flint Hills Resources, LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc.,
since July 2013. From June 2011 through July 2013, Mr. Go served as vice president — operations excellence of Flint Hills
Resources, LP. From August 2008 through June 2011, Mr. Go served as managing director — operations excellence of Koch
Industries, Inc. Mr. Go received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
R. Patrick Murray, II has served as executive vice president, chief financial officer and secretary of our general partner since
October 2014. From December 2012 through October 2014, Mr. Murray served as senior vice president, chief financial officer
and secretary of our general partner. From September 2005 through December 2012, Mr. Murray served as vice president, chief
financial officer and secretary of our general partner. Mr. Murray served as the vice president and chief financial officer of our
Predecessor from 1999 until our initial public offering and served as its controller from 1998 to 1999. From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Murray
was a senior auditor with Arthur Andersen LLP. Mr. Murray received his B.B.A. in Accountancy from the University of Notre
Dame.
William A. Anderson has served as executive vice president — sales of our general partner since October 2014. From October
2012 through October 2014, Mr. Anderson served as vice president — marketing and new products. From September 2005 through
September 2012, Mr. Anderson served as vice president — sales of our general partner. Mr. Anderson served as vice president —
sales and marketing of our Predecessor from 2000 until our initial public offering and served in various other capacities from 1993
to 2000. Mr. Anderson received his B.A. in Communications from DePauw University.
Edward F. Juno has served as executive vice president — fuels operations since November 2015. From March 2015 through
November 2015, Mr. Juno served as executive vice president — operations. From December 2012 through March 2015, Mr. Juno
served as vice president — refining technology. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Juno served as vice president of West Coast
refining with Alon USA Energy, Inc. from January 2010 through December 2012. From July 2003 through January 2010, Mr. Juno
held various management positions at Sinclair Energy Corporation. From January 1988 through July 2003, Mr. Juno held various
engineering, operations and management positions at CITGO Petroleum Corporation and Pennzoil Products Company. Mr. Juno
received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Kansas State University.
James S. Carter has served as a member of the board of directors of our general partner since January 2006. Mr. Carter
worked in various capacities at ExxonMobil including vice president of U.S. marketing and sales of fuels and specialty products,
manager of U.S. refining and marketing planning and analysis, manager of U.S. distribution activities, analysis manager of
ExxonMobil International, and advisor to ExxonMobil headquarters for European refining and marketing until his retirement in
2003. Mr. Carter received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University and his M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting
from Tulane University.
Mr. Carter brings extensive marketing and managerial experience with one of the largest integrated energy companies in the
world. He possesses a broad background in petroleum products marketing, with specific experience in the marketing of fuel
products.
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.
156
Mr. Funk has extensive refining industry experience including planning, operations and managerial roles for a large
multinational refining company. His broad background of experience provides helpful insight to the Company in its implementation
of strategic initiatives and its refinery operations in general.
George C. Morris III has served as a member of the board of directors of our general partner since May 2009. Mr. Morris
has served as president of Morris Energy Advisors, Inc. since March 2009 and most recently served as a managing director at
Merrill Lynch & Co. from December 2006 until his retirement in March 2009. Mr. Morris served as a managing director of
investment banking at Petrie Parkman & Co. until its acquisition by Merrill Lynch in December 2006 and also served as a managing
director of investment banking at Simmons & Company International and as a director of investment banking at First Boston
Corporation. Mr. Morris holds B.B.A. and M.B.A. degrees from the University of Texas and a J.D. from Southern Methodist
University. Mr. Morris is also a member of the board of directors of Arch Coal, Inc., a public company which produces thermal
and metallurgical coal from surface and underground mines.
Mr. Morris’ long tenure in the investment banking industry with a focus on the energy sector provides a unique breadth of
experience to the board of directors in areas of finance and capital markets. In his role as a financial advisor to the Company prior
to joining the board of directors, Mr. Morris gained significant insight into the Company’s operations and strategy.
Daniel J. Sajkowski has served as a member of the board of directors of our general partner since September 2014. Mr.
Sajkowski has served as executive vice president, growth and new ventures of The Heritage Group since 2013. Prior to joining
The Heritage Group, Mr. Sajkowski was the senior director — downstream technology at Sapphire Energy from 2010 until 2013.
From 2004 to 2010, Mr. Sajkowski served as business unit leader at BP’s Whiting, Indiana refinery. During his career with BP/
Amoco, Mr. Sajkowski also held positions as the manager of integrated supply and trading from 2002 until 2004 and vice president
of refining technology from 2000 until 2002. Mr. Sajkowski earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Chemical Engineering from the
University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Stanford University in 1986. He also completed The General
Manager Program at Harvard University in 2000.
Mr. Sajkowski has extensive refining industry experience including planning, operations and managerial roles for a large
multinational refining company. His broad background of experience provides helpful insight to the Company in its implementation
of strategic initiatives and its refinery operations in general.
Amy M. Schumacher has served as a member of the board of directors of our general partner since September 2014. Ms.
Schumacher has served as the president of Monument Chemicals, Inc. and Haltermann Solutions since 2010. Prior to joining
Monument Chemicals, Inc. and Haltermann Solutions, Ms. Schumacher worked in various capacities for The Heritage Group
leading a variety of growth projects from 2003 until 2010. From 1998 to 2003, Ms. Schumacher was a consultant with Accenture.
Ms. Schumacher received her B.S. in Civil Engineering from Purdue University and her M.S. in Management from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School. Ms. Schumacher currently serves as a trustee for The Heritage Group and
sits on a number of private subsidiary boards. Ms. Schumacher is the daughter of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., the chairman of the
board of our general partner.
Ms. Schumacher has extensive managerial experience including planning and strategy. She possesses a broad background
within the chemicals industry, with specific experience in strategic growth projects.
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 owners, officers or employees of our general
partner or directors, officers, or employees of its affiliates, and must meet the independence and experience standards established
by NASDAQ and the Exchange Act to serve on an audit committee of a board of directors, and certain other requirements. Any
matters approved by the conflicts committee will be conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us, approved by all of our
partners, and not a breach by our general partner of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders. The two independent board
members who serve on the conflicts committee are Messrs. James S. Carter and Robert E. Funk. Mr. Carter serves as the chairman
of the conflicts committee.
Compensation Committee
The board of directors of our general partner also has a compensation committee which, among other responsibilities, has
overall responsibility for evaluating and either approving or recommending to the board of directors the director, chief executive
officer and senior executive compensation plans, policies and programs of the Company. 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.
157
The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the compensation committee which defines the scope of the
committee’s 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 of any of the Company’s 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
Company. Further, the compensation committee periodically reviews and makes a recommendation to the board of directors for
changes in the compensation of all directors. The committee has the authority to retain or terminate any compensation consultant
that assists it in the evaluation of director and senior executive compensation and to obtain independent advice and assistance from
internal and external legal, accounting and other advisors.
See Item 11 “Executive and Director Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Peer Group and
Compensation Targets” for additional discussion regarding the results of this executive compensation review.
Audit Committee
The board of directors of our general partner has an audit committee comprised of three directors, Messrs. James S. Carter,
Robert E. Funk and George C. Morris III, each of whom the board of directors of our general partner has determined meets the
independence and experience standards established by NASDAQ and the SEC. In addition, the board of directors of our general
partner has determined that Mr. Morris is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the SEC. Mr. Morris 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 directors, officers 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 East Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 46214.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires Calumet’s directors and certain executive officers,
as well as beneficial owners of ten percent or more of Calumet’s common units, to report their holdings and transactions in Calumet’s
securities. Based on information furnished to Calumet and contained in reports filed pursuant to Section 16(a), as well as written
representations that no other reports were required for 2015, Calumet’s directors and executive officers filed all reports required
by Section 16(a) with the exception of (i) one late filing related to a phantom unit grant and related vesting on November 3, 2015
for Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., (ii) one late filing related to a phantom unit grant and related vesting on November 3, 2015 for James
S. Carter, (iii) one late filing related to a phantom unit grant and related vesting on November 3, 2015 for George C. Morris, III,
(iv) one late filing related to a phantom unit grant and related vesting on November 3, 2015 for Robert E. Funk, (v) one late filing
related to a phantom unit grant and related vesting on November 3, 2015 for Amy M. Schumacher.
158
Item 11. Executive and Director Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Overview
For purposes of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the compensation tables that follow, the names and positions
of our named executive officers for the 2015 year were:
• F. William Grube — Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board through March 31, 2015 (Executive Vice
Chairman of the Board as of April 1, 2015)
• William H. Hatch — Interim Chief Executive Officer commencing on April 1, 2015
• R. Patrick Murray, II — Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
• William A. Anderson — Executive Vice President — Sales
• Edward F. Juno — Executive Vice President — Fuels Operations
•
Jennifer G. Straumins — Former Executive Vice President — Strategy and Development (resigned effective March 31,
2015)
Mr. Hatch transitioned into a new role of an executive advisor beginning on January 1, 2016. Mr. Timothy Go became our
new chief executive officer on January 1, 2016, but due to the fact that the SEC’s compensation disclosure requires information
regarding named executive officers as of December 31, 2015, Mr. Go’s compensation information will be included in the executive
compensation disclosures relating to the 2016 fiscal year.
Ms. Straumins’ employment ended on March 31, 2015, however due to the fact that the SEC’s compensation disclosure
requires information regarding up to two former executives who served as executive officers during any part of the last completed
fiscal year but who were not serving as executive officers at the end of the last completed fiscal year, provided such individuals’
total compensation for the portion of the year served would have made the individual one of the three most highly compensated
executives for the last completed fiscal year, Ms. Straumins’ compensation information is included in the executive compensation
disclosures relating to the 2015 fiscal year.
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 us, 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 partner’s executive
compensation programs are based on a pay-for-performance philosophy, including measurement of our performance against a
specified financial target, namely Distributable Cash Flow. Our executive compensation programs include both long-term and
short-term compensation elements which, together with base salary and employee benefits, constitute a total compensation package
intended to be competitive with similar companies.
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 our overall financial performance, our growth over time, our changes in complexity as
well as individual executive job scope, complexity and performance, and changes in competitive compensation practices in our
defined labor markets. In determining any forms of compensation other than the base salary for the senior executives, or in the
case of the chief executive officer, the recommendation to the board of directors of the forms of compensation for the chief executive
officer, the compensation committee considers our 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
Our primary business objective is to generate cash flows to make distributions to our unitholders. As a result, our Distributable
Cash Flow is the primary measurement of performance taken into account in setting policies and making compensation decisions,
as we believe this represents the most comprehensive measurement of our ability to generate cash flows. In 2015, the compensation
committee excluded the impact of lower of cost or market (“LCM”) inventory adjustments, but included the loss from unconsolidated
affiliates (excluding the impairment charge related to our investment in Juniper GTL LLC) in the calculation of Distributable Cash
Flow used for incentive compensation purposes. Both short-term and long-term forms of executive compensation are specifically
structured on our 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 the terms of our revolving
159
credit agreement and senior notes indentures, as our Adjusted EBITDA less replacement capital expenditures, cash interest expense,
turnaround costs, income (loss) from unconsolidated affiliates and income tax expense (benefit). Please refer to Part II, Item 6
“Selected Financial Data — Non-GAAP Financial Measures” for our definition of Adjusted EBITDA.
Peer Group and Compensation Targets
To evaluate all areas of executive compensation, the compensation committee seeks the additional input of outside
compensation consultants and available comparative information to validate that the compensation programs established for our
executives are consistent with the philosophy of compensating our executives at ranges that approximate within 10% of the median
of market for companies of similar size to us. In 2014, the compensation committee retained Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck
Consultants”) as an independent consultant to review our general partner’s executive compensation programs. Buck Consultants
reported directly to the compensation committee and did not provide any additional services to our general partner. The scope of
this engagement included the following:
•
•
•
review of a peer group of primarily publicly-traded master limited partnerships for executive compensation comparisons;
analysis of market pay levels and trends for our named executive officers, other officers and key employees from peer
companies including base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentives; and
assessment of Calumet’s executive pay levels relative to overall market levels.
The following master limited partnerships and corporations were included by Buck Consultants in the peer group for the
compensation review: Alon USA Energy, Inc., the former Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, Buckeye
Partners, L.P., Crestwood Equity Partners LP, EnLink Midstream LLC, CVR Refining, LP, DCP Midstream Partners, LP, Delek
US Holdings, Inc., Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., EnLink Midstream Partners, LP, Genesis Energy, L.P., Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., NGL Energy Partners LP, Northern Tier Energy LP, NuStar
Energy L.P., ONEOK Partners, L.P., the former Regency Energy Partners LP, Targa Resources Partners LP and Williams Partners
L.P. Peer group companies were validated and selected based on their comparability of EBITDA (a non-GAAP measurement),
sales and market capitalization to those of Calumet. Market data compiled from public disclosures of the peer group companies
were used in the review to compare our compensation of the key executive group against the market. Buck Consultants provided
a presentation of its findings to the compensation committee in November 2014 that assisted us in making the compensation
decisions described below for the 2015 year.
The compensation committee used the findings of the Buck Consultants executive compensation review to validate the total
competitiveness of compensation for our key executives, including each named executive officer. Specifically, the Buck Consultants
review indicated that aggregate target total direct compensation of our key executives, which includes all the major elements of
our executive compensation program, including base salary, short-term incentives and long-term compensation, was within the
median of market by approximately 10%. Long-term incentives for the key executives were within the 25th percentile of the peer
group by approximately 10%, which the compensation committee deemed appropriate given our smaller size relative to certain
master limited partnerships included in the peer group, with an expectation by the compensation committee that with future
achievement of strategic goals and further growth in financial performance, such long-term incentive opportunities should migrate
toward the median level of the peer group. As of this filing, we have not made any material changes to our compensation program
for the 2016 year.
Review of Named Executive Officer Performance
The compensation committee reviews, on an annual basis, each compensation element for 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 individual’s performance.
Objectives of Compensation Programs
Our executive compensation programs are designed with the following primary objectives:
•
reward strong individual performance that drives our positive financial results;
• make incentive compensation a significant portion of an executive’s total compensation, designed to balance short-term
and long-term performance;
align the interests of our executives with those of our unitholders; and
attract, develop and retain executives with a compensation structure that is competitive with other publicly-traded
partnerships of similar size.
•
•
160
Elements of Executive Compensation
The compensation committee believes the total compensation and benefits program for our named executive officers should
consist of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
base salary;
annual incentive plan which includes short-term cash awards and also includes an optional deferred compensation element;
long-term incentive compensation, including unit-based awards;
retirement, health and welfare benefits; and
perquisites.
These elements are designed to constitute an integrated executive compensation structure meant to incentivize a high level
of individual executive officer performance in line with our financial and operating goals.
Base Salary
Design. Salaries provide executives with a base level of semi-monthly income as consideration for fulfillment of certain
roles and responsibilities. The salary program assists us in achieving our objective of attracting and retaining the services of quality
individuals who are essential for the growth and profitability of Calumet. Generally, changes in the base salary levels for our named
executive officers are determined on an annual basis by the compensation committee of the board of directors and are effective at
the beginning of the following fiscal year.
Results. The 2015 base salaries for Mr. Grube, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Juno and Ms. Straumins were
$454,363, $500,000, $339,488, $312,626, $263,831and $371,315, respectively, although amounts in the Summary Compensation
Table below will reflect pro-rata values based upon the portion of the year in which the executive was providing services to us.
These 2015 base salaries for Mr. Grube, Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Straumins compare to $441,129, $329,600, $279,130
and $360,500, respectively, in 2014. The levels of increases in the base salaries for Mr. Grube, Mr. Murray and Ms. Straumins
were a 3.0% increase from 2014 levels.
Compensation Changes for 2016. With respect to our named executive officers, the compensation committee approved
increased salaries for certain executives as part of its annual salary review process. Effective January 1, 2016, the base salaries
were increased for Messrs. Murray and Anderson to $353,067 and $325,130, respectively. The levels of increases in the base
salaries for Messrs. Murray and Anderson were based on the approximate average of the percentage increase of all salaried
employees for 2016. Effective January 1, 2016, the base salary for Mr. Juno is $272,537. The level of increase takes into account
his increased job responsibilities resulting from his promotion to executive vice president - fuels operations. The compensation
committee also considered the increases to base salary to be appropriate based on comparisons against our peer group of publicly
traded partnerships in an effort to ensure that base salaries were closer to the market median of our peer group.
Short-Term Cash Awards
Design. Under the Cash Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Cash Incentive Plan”), short-term cash awards are designed to
aid us in retaining and motivating executives to assist us in meeting our financial performance objectives on an annual basis. Short-
term cash awards are granted to named executive officers and certain other management employees based on our achievement of
performance targets on our Distributable Cash Flow, thereby establishing a direct link between executive compensation and our
financial performance.
The compensation committee establishes minimum, target and stretch incentive opportunities for each executive officer and
other key employees expressed as a percentage of base salary. The amount that is paid out is based on our achievement of a
minimum, target or stretch level of Distributable Cash Flow during the fiscal year. The compensation committee may determine
whether the applicable performance period will be a full calendar year or a specific portion of a calendar year, depending upon
our incentive goals for the short-term cash awards for that year. At the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors approves Distributable Cash Flow targets for each performance period based on budgets prepared by management.
When making the annual determination of the minimum goal, target goal and stretch goal levels of Distributable Cash Flow, the
compensation committee and the board of directors consider the specific circumstances facing us during the relevant year. Generally,
the compensation committee seeks to set the minimum goal, target goal and stretch goal levels such that the relative challenge of
achieving each level is consistent from year to year. The expectation that management will achieve the minimum goal level is very
high, while meaningful additional effort would be required to achieve the target goal and considerable additional effort would be
required to achieve the stretch goal.
Generally, no awards are paid under the Cash Incentive Plan unless we achieve at least the minimum Distributable Cash
Flow goal. If the minimum, target or stretch level Distributable Cash Flow goal is achieved, participants in the plan will receive
their minimum, target or stretch cash award opportunity, respectively. If our Distributable Cash Flow is between specified goal
161
levels, participants are eligible to receive a prorated percentage of their cash award opportunity based on where the actual
Distributable Cash Flow amount falls between the levels.
The compensation committee established separate short-term cash awards for Mr. Hatch, as a result of his interim position.
Mr. Hatch was eligible to receive a quarterly bonus of up to $62,500 based on individual performance in accomplishing certain
key goals/milestones (e.g., successful attainment of major capital projects, achievement of certain operational and safety metrics,
etc.) monitored by the board of directors. The performance metrics reviewed by the board of directors were used as guidelines
rather than as formulaic requirements for the determination of the payment
Results. For fiscal year 2015, the minimum Distributable Cash Flow goal was $151.1 million, the target goal was $203.1
million and the stretch goal was $255.1 million. For the reasons described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations — 2015 Update,” we met at least our target goal with 2015 Distributable Cash Flow of $224.5
million, as defined under the Cash Incentive Plan.
The following table summarizes the levels of cash award opportunity for each named executive officer and the actual
percentage earned by them in 2015:
F. William Grube, R. Patrick Murray, II and William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
50%
50%
100%
100%
200%
150%
Actual Payout
141%
121%
Cash Incentive Award Opportunity as a
Percentage of Base Salary
Stretch
Target
Minimum
Ms. Straumins forfeited her award under the plan for fiscal year 2015 based on the timing of her departure and the terms of
the Cash Compensation Incentive Plan.
The compensation committee determined these percentages of base salary at levels, when combined with both base salary
and potential long-term, unit-based awards, to develop a total direct compensation structure for the named executive officers which
is intended to be within approximately 10% of the median of our peer group, while placing significant emphasis on the achievement
of our Distributable Cash Flow goals.
For 2015, the target goal for Distributable Cash Flow was set at the budgeted amount, a level that the board of directors
believed reflected the reasonable expectations management had for our financial performance during the fiscal year and likely to
be achieved given actual Distributable Cash Flow achieved for the 2014 fiscal year. The board of directors set the stretch Distributable
Cash Flow goal at 26% above the budgeted amount, a level which they believed would be attained only with higher levels of
performance relative to the reasonable expectations management had for our financial performance and therefore not likely to be
achieved. The minimum goal was set at approximately 26% below the budgeted amount. Please read “Management’s Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — 2015 Update,” for a discussion of the factors that impacted our
results, including higher sales volume, the primary driver that enabled us to meet our Distributable Cash Flow targets. The following
table reflects our historical minimum, target and stretch Distributable Cash Flow goals:
Fiscal Year
2015 (1)
2014 (2)
2013
Distributable Cash Flow (In millions)
Actual
$224.5
$114.1
$18.5
Minimum Goal
$151.1
$79.9
$175.3
Target Goal
$203.1
$110.5
$246.8
Stretch Goal
$255.1
$141.1
$357.6
(1) Actual results exclude an $81.8 million LCM inventory adjustment, include a $37.5 million loss from unconsolidated affiliates
and exclude bonus expense for calculation purposes.
(2) Actual, minimum goal, target goal and stretch goal were based on the combined third and fourth quarters of 2014. Actual
results exclude bonus expense for calculation purposes.
Mr. Hatch received $187,500 based on individual performance in accomplishing certain key goals/milestones (e.g., successful
attainment of major capital projects, achievement of certain operational and safety metrics, etc.) monitored by the board of directors.
Compensation Changes for 2016. Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board of directors has
approved new Distributable Cash Flow targets for the 2016 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by management. We do not
disclose our confidential 2016 targets, which, if disclosed, would put us at a competitive disadvantage. However, we believe that
the targets set for the 2016 year will be difficult to achieve and that there is no guarantee that our named executive officers will
receive an award related to the 2016 year.
162
For further description of this compensation program, please see “Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table
and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Cash Incentive Plan.”
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
Design. The compensation committee allows for the participation of the executive officers in the Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”) to encourage the officers to save for
retirement and to assist us in retaining our officers. The Deferred Compensation Plan is intended to promote retention by giving
employees an opportunity to save in a tax-efficient manner. The terms governing the retirement benefit under this plan for the
executive officers are the same as those available for other eligible employees in the U.S. Pursuant to the Deferred Compensation
Plan, a select group of management, including the named executive officers, and all of the non-employee directors are eligible to
participate by making an annual irrevocable election to defer, in the case of management, all or a portion of their annual cash
incentive award under the Cash Incentive Plan, and, in the case of non-management directors, all or none of their annual cash
retainer. The deferred amounts are credited to participants’ accounts in the form of phantom units, with each such phantom unit
representing a notional unit that entitles the holder to receive either an actual common unit or the cash value of a common unit
(determined by using the fair market value of a common unit at the time a determination is needed). The phantom units credited
to each participant’s account also receive distribution equivalent rights (“DERs”), which are credited to the participant’s account
in the form of additional phantom units. In our sole discretion, we may make matching contributions of phantom units or purely
discretionary contributions of phantom units, in amounts and at times as the compensation committee recommends and the board
of directors approves.
Results. On March 13, 2015, we made discretionary matching contributions of phantom units to the accounts of those
participants in the Deferred Compensation Plan, including certain of the named executive officers who elected to defer all or a
portion of their annual cash incentive award related to the 2014 fiscal year. These contributions, which were subject to continued
service vesting requirements, were made as a reward for prior service and future efforts toward our success and growth, as well
as an incentive for continued participation through elective deferrals into the Deferred Compensation Plan. Please see Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation” for a more detailed disclosure of the value of contributions into this plan, vesting terms, as well as the
DERs associated with such contributions.
Long-Term, Unit-Based Awards
Design. Long-term unit-based awards may consist of any type of award allowed pursuant to our Long-Term Incentive Plan,
including phantom units, restricted units, unit options, substitution awards and DERs. These awards are granted to employees,
consultants and directors of our general partner under the provisions of our Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended, originally
adopted on January 24, 2006, and administered by the compensation committee. These awards aid Calumet in retaining and
motivating executives to assist us in meeting our financial performance objectives.
In fiscal year 2015, the annual unit award opportunity to named executive officers consisted of the contingent right to receive
phantom units. Under the Long-Term Incentive Plan, phantom units are granted only upon our achievement of specified levels of
Distributable Cash Flow. When granted, phantom units are subject to further time-based vesting criteria specified in the grant.
Upon satisfaction of the time-based vesting criteria specified in the grant, phantom units convert into common units (or cash
equivalent). Accordingly, these awards established a direct link between executive compensation and our financial performance.
This component of executive compensation, when coupled with an extended ratable vesting period as compared to cash awards,
further aligns the interests of executives with our unitholders in the longer-term and reinforces unit ownership levels among
executives.
Results. The following table provides the annual unit award opportunity for each named executive officer. Our general
objective when determining the size of the phantom unit awards is to provide our named executive officers with long-term incentive
opportunities targeted within approximately 10% of the 25th percentile of peer practices for long-term equity based awards for
similarly situated executive officers. The following table reflects the number of phantom units that would be awarded to our named
executive officers depending on whether we achieved the Distributable Cash Flow minimum, target or stretch goals discussed
above in “Short-Term Cash Awards” as well as the actual number of phantom units earned in 2015, which will be awarded in the
first quarter of 2016:
F. William Grube
R. Patrick Murray, II, William A. Anderson and
Jennifer G. Straumins (1)
Edward F. Juno
2015 Phantom Unit Award
Opportunity
Minimum
Target
Stretch
10,800
7,200
5,400
163
21,600
14,400
10,800
32,400
21,600
16,200
Phantom Units
Earned
21,600
14,400
10,800
(1) Ms. Straumins did not earn any phantom units in 2015 as a result of her resignation on March 31, 2015.
Phantom units granted are subject to a time-vesting requirement, whereby 25% of the units would vest immediately at grant
and the remainder vest ratably over three years on each December 31. These phantom units also receive DERs, which are paid in
the form of cash.
Mr. Hatch was granted a sign-on phantom unit award with a grant date fair value of $250,070 under the provisions of our
Long-Term Incentive Plan and therefore did not participate in the 2015 Phantom Unit Program. Due to the interim nature of his
position in 2015, Mr. Hatch’s phantom units were granted subject to a time-vesting requirement, whereby the units fully vest on
March 31, 2016.
For further description of this compensation program, please see “Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table
and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan.”
Health and Welfare Benefits
We offer a variety of health and welfare benefits to all eligible employees of our general partner. These benefits are consistent
with the types of benefits provided by our peer group and provided so as to ensure that we are able to maintain a competitive
position in terms of attracting and retaining executive officers and other employees. In addition, the health and welfare programs
are intended to protect employees against catastrophic loss and encourage a healthy lifestyle. The named executive officers generally
are eligible for the same benefit programs on the same basis as the rest of our employees. Our health and welfare programs include
medical, pharmacy, dental, life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverages. In addition, all employees working
over 30 hours per week are eligible for long-term disability coverage. Long-term disability coverage benefits specific to the named
executive officers provide for 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 $15,000 per month during a period of continuing
disability up to normal retirement age, as defined by the policy. Executive officers and other key employees are also eligible to
obtain annual executive physical examinations which are paid for by Calumet. Decisions made with respect to this compensation
element do not significantly factor into or affect decisions made with respect to other compensation elements.
Retirement Benefits
We provide the Calumet GP, LLC Retirement Savings Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) to assist our eligible officers and employees
in providing for their retirement. Named executive officers participate in the same retirement savings plan as other eligible employees
subject to ERISA limits. We match 100% of each 1% of eligible compensation contribution by the participant up to 4% and 50%
of each additional 1% of eligible compensation contribution up to 6%, for a maximum contribution by us of 5% of eligible
compensation contributions per participant. These contributions are provided as a reward for prior contributions and future efforts
toward our success and growth.
Perquisites
We provide executive officers with perquisites and other personal benefits that we believe are reasonable and consistent with
our overall compensation programs and philosophy. These benefits are provided in order to enable us to attract and retain these
executives. Decisions made with respect to this compensation element do not significantly factor into or affect decisions made
with respect to other compensation elements.
All named executive officers are provided with all, or certain of, the following benefits as a supplement to their other
compensation:
• Use of Company Vehicles: In order to assist them in conducting our daily affairs, we provide each named executive officer
with a company vehicle that may be used for personal use as well as business use. Personal use of a company vehicle is
treated as taxable compensation to the named executive officer.
• Executive Physical Program: Generally on an annual basis, we pay for a complete and professional personal physical
exam for each named executive officer appropriate for his age to improve his health and productivity.
• Club Memberships: We pay club membership fees for a certain named executive officer. 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 to us or direct payment for any incremental costs above the base
membership fees associated with his personal use of such membership.
•
Spousal and Family Travel: On an occasional basis, we pay expenses related to travel of the spouses or certain family
members of our named executive officers in order to accompany the named executive officer to business-related events.
• Long-Term Disability Insurance: We provide compensation to allow each named executive officer to purchase long-term
disability insurance on an after-tax basis at no net cost to him.
164
• Legal Expenses: On an occasional basis, we pay legal expenses related to the negotiation of employment agreements for
our named executive officers.
• Use of Company Aircraft: On an occasional basis, our named executive officers may be eligible to use a leased aircraft
for personal use and the incremental cost to us is treated as and reflected in the tables below as compensation to the
applicable officer for purposes of these disclosures. The items that we use to determine the incremental cost to us of these
flights include the variable costs for personal use of aircraft that were charged to us by the vendor that operates the leased
aircraft for contracted hourly costs, fuel charges, and taxes.
• Commuting and Living Expenses: In order for us to attract top executive talent, we must not be limited to those individuals
residing in the Indianapolis metropolitan area and in some cases must be willing to offer payment or reimbursement for
an agreed upon amount of relocation, commuting, temporary housing and other related costs.
The compensation committee periodically reviews the perquisite program to determine if adjustments are appropriate and
noted the addition of payment of legal expenses was appropriate.
Other Compensation Related Matters
Former Executive Compensation
In March 2015, we entered into a severance and consulting agreement with Ms. Straumins in connection with her resignation.
The terms of the agreement are described under “Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based
Awards in Fiscal 2015 Table.”
Clawback Policy
The Long-Term Incentive Plan was last amended and restated on December 10, 2015. This amendment included a new
provision that addresses the potential need to recover awards granted under that plan. To the extent that applicable laws or listing
standards would require it, or otherwise as determined appropriate by us, all awards granted under the Long-Term Incentive Plan
shall be subject to clawback, forfeiture, repurchase or recoupment, as appropriate.
Tax Implications of Executive Compensation
Because we are 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 us. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”) provides that
amounts deferred under nonqualified deferred compensation plans are includible in a participant’s income when vested, unless
certain requirements are met. If these requirements are not met, participants are also subject to an additional income tax and interest.
All of our awards under our Long-Term Incentive Plan, severance arrangements and other nonqualified deferred compensation
plans presently meet these requirements. As a result, employees will be taxed when the deferred compensation is actually paid to
them. We will be entitled to a tax deduction at that time.
Executive Ownership of Units
While we have not adopted any security ownership requirements or policies for our executives, our executive compensation
programs foster the enhancement of executives’ equity ownership through long-term, unit-based awards under the Long-Term
Incentive Plan. Further, in 2006 several executives purchased a significant number of our common units as participants in a 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
our securities. Pursuant to Calumet’s Insider Trading Policy, all executive officers and directors must confer with our Chief Financial
Officer before effecting any put or call options for our securities. Further, the Insider Trading Policy states that we strongly
discourage 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 East Drive, Suite 200,
Indianapolis, Indiana, 46214.
Employment Agreements
We have entered into employment agreements with F. William Grube, executive vice chairman (former chief executive
officer and vice chairman of the board), William H. Hatch, our 2015 interim chief executive officer, and R. Patrick Murray, II,
executive vice president and chief financial officer, to ensure they will perform their roles for an extended period of time given
their position and value to us. For a discussion of the material terms of the employment agreements, please refer to “Narrative
Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Employment Agreements.”
165
Under these employment agreements, the named executive officers are entitled to receive severance compensation if their
employment is terminated under certain conditions, such as termination by the named executive officer for “good reason” or by
us without “cause,” each as defined in the agreements and further described in “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change
in Control.”
Our employment agreements with the named executive officers and the related severance provisions are designed to meet
the following objectives:
•
•
Change in Control: In certain scenarios, the potential for merger or being acquired may be in the best interests of our
unitholders. We provide the potential for severance compensation to the named executive officers in the event of a change
in control transaction to promote their ability to act in the best interests of our unitholders even though their employment
could be terminated as a result of the transaction.
Termination without Cause: We believe severance compensation in such a scenario is appropriate because the named
executive officers are bound by confidentiality, nonsolicitation and noncompetition provisions covering one year after
termination and because we and the named executive officer have mutually agreed to a severance package that is in place
prior to any termination event. This provides us with more flexibility to make a change in this executive position if such
a change is in our and our unitholders’ best interests.
The salary multiple of the change of control benefits, use of the single or double trigger change of control benefits and the
amount of the severance payout were determined through negotiations with each named executive officer at the time that we
entered into the employment agreements. Relative to the overall value to us, the compensation committee believes these potential
benefits are reasonable.
Report of the Compensation Committee for the Year Ended December 31, 2015
The compensation committee of our general partner has reviewed and discussed our Compensation Discussion and Analysis
with management. Based upon such review, the related discussion with management and such other matters deemed relevant and
appropriate by the compensation committee, the compensation committee has recommended to the board of directors that our
Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Members of the Compensation Committee:
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Chairman
F. William Grube
166
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain compensation information of our named executive officers for the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013:
Summary Compensation Table for 2015
Name and Principal
Position
F. William Grube (1)
Executive Vice
Chairman and Former
Chief Executive Officer
William H. Hatch (2)
Interim Chief Executive
Officer
R. Patrick Murray, II
Executive Vice
President and Chief
Financial Officer
William A. Anderson
Executive Vice
President — Sales
Edward F. Juno (3)
Executive Vice
President — Fuels
Operations
Jennifer G. Straumins (4)
Former Executive Vice
President - Strategy and
Development
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Year
Salary
Bonus (5)
Unit Awards (6)
2015
$ 454,363
2014
$ 441,129
2013
$ 428,281
$
$
$
— $
574,253
— $
393,900
— $
68,711
2015
$ 375,000
$ 187,500
$
250,070
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation (7)
All Other
Compensation (8)
641,351
302,184
$
$
— $
70,323
89,918
6,098
— $
386,006
2015
$ 339,488
2014
$ 329,600
2013
$ 320,000
2015
$ 312,626
2014
$ 279,130
2013
$ 279,130
2015
$ 251,331
2015
$
92,829
2014
$ 360,500
2013
$ 350,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
— $
423,072
— $
269,815
— $
52,641
— $
338,400
— $
217,584
431,280
165,769
$
$
— $
441,284
155,984
$
$
— $
— $
— $
47,865
87,200
18,263
60,633
79,048
15,741
— $
365,313
— $
3,590
— $
233,857
— $
39,030
$
$
$
$
212,133
$
27,226
— $
829,467
201,456
$
— $
92,098
17,483
Total
1,740,290
1,227,131
503,090
1,011,076
1,241,705
852,384
390,904
1,152,943
731,746
294,871
856,003
925,886
887,911
406,513
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(1) Mr. Grube was appointed executive vice chairman effective April 1, 2015.
(2) Mr. Hatch was appointed interim chief executive officer effective April 1, 2015 and transitioned to executive advisor on
January 1, 2016.
(3) Mr. Juno’s employment with us commenced December 2012. He was appointed executive vice president — fuels operations
effective March 23, 2015, and was not a named executive officer prior to 2015.
(4) Ms. Straumins resigned effective March 31, 2015.
(5) Mr. Hatch was eligible to receive a quarterly bonus of up to $62,500 based on individual performance in accomplishing
certain key goals/milestones (e.g., successful attainment of major capital projects, achievement of certain operational and
safety metrics, etc.) monitored by the board of directors. The performance metrics reviewed by the board of directors were
used as guidelines rather than as formulaic requirements for the determination of the payment, therefore we have reported
it as a “Bonus” rather than a “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” award.
(6) The amounts include the aggregate grant date fair value of (i) phantom unit awards made in connection with each executive
officer’s election to defer a portion of his cash incentive plan award into our Deferred Compensation Plan, (ii) discretionary
matching phantom unit awards granted during the 2015 fiscal year related to the 2014 fiscal year, (iii) phantom units to
reward services provided during the fiscal year and the number of which is determined based on our level of Distributable
Cash Flow during the fiscal year, excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures and (iv) DERs granted in the form of phantom
units with respect to phantom units credited to the Deferred Compensation Plan accounts. The amounts exclude discretionary
matching contributions made in the form of phantom units granted in 2016 to our named executive officers based on their
individual elections to defer all or a portion of their cash award under the Cash Incentive Plan related to the 2015 fiscal year
into the Deferred Compensation Plan. These amounts will be reported in the Summary Compensation Table in 2016. The
amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. See Note 11 to our
167
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015 for a discussion of the assumptions used to
determine the FASB ASC Topic 718 value of the awards.
(7) Represents amounts earned under our Cash Incentive Plan and not deferred into the Deferred Compensation Plan. Please
read “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of Executive Compensation — Short-Term Cash Awards” for
further details. Based on the timing of Ms. Straumins’ resignation, she forfeited her award under the plan for fiscal 2015.
(8) The following table provides the aggregate “All Other Compensation” information for each of the named executive officers,
except that it excludes perquisites or other personal benefits received by Messrs. Murray and Juno in 2015, as such amounts
for these named executive officers were less than $10,000 in aggregate:
F. William
Grube
William H.
Hatch
R. Patrick
Murray, II
William A.
Anderson
Edward F.
Juno
Jennifer G.
Straumins
401(k) Plan Matching Contributions
DERs
Commuting and Living Expenses (a)
Vehicle
Memberships
Executive Physical
Spousal and Family Travel
Long-Term Disability Insurance
Term Life Insurance
Post-Employment Payments (b)
Total
$
7,950
$
— $
13,250
$
13,250
$
13,250
$
33,291
33,291
12,947
49,937
—
8,978
—
1,400
—
1,044
1,014
—
12,494
371,602
—
—
—
—
740
1,170
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,324
—
—
8,069
2,379
—
1,379
1,044
1,221
—
3,649
11,097
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,029
—
362
814,359
$
70,323
$ 386,006
$
47,865
$
60,633
$
27,226
$
829,467
(a) As part of Mr. Hatch’s employment agreement, we provided him an apartment near our headquarters and paid for
his commuting expenses to and from his permanent home to Indianapolis. In 2015, these housing expenses totaled
approximately $19,876 and the commuting expenses totaled approximately $351,726.
(b) As part of Ms. Straumins’ resignation, we entered into a severance and consulting agreement with her. The agreement provided
for a one-year term of consulting service and service payment of $371,315. The severance agreement further provided for a
cash payment equal to the value she would have received as an Incentive Level 1 employee under our Cash Incentive Plan
had the Company achieved the “target” level for calendar year 2015 (described further in the “Narrative Disclosure to
Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table”). Additionally, Ms. Straumins was provided free
and clean title to her company automobile, reimbursed for twelve months of COBRA insurance coverage and paid unused
vacation.
168
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth grants of plan-based awards to our named executive officers for the year ended December 31,
2015:
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for the Year Ended December 31, 2015
Name
F. William Grube
William H. Hatch
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
Jennifer G. Straumins (4)
Grant Date
12/16/2014
1/23/2015
4/20/2015
7/21/2015
10/22/2015
5/1/2015
12/16/2014
1/23/2015
3/13/2015
4/20/2015
7/21/2015
10/22/2015
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
3/13/2015
4/20/2015
7/21/2015
10/22/15
12/16/2014
1/23/2015
4/20/2015
Estimated Possible Payouts Under
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Awards (1)
Target
($)
454,363
Maximum
($)
908,726
Minimum
($)
227,182
Estimated Possible Payouts Under
Equity
Incentive Plan Awards (2)
Target
(#)
Maximum
(#)
Minimum
(#)
10,800
21,600
32,400
169,744
339,488
678,976
7,200
14,400
21,600
156,313
312,626
625,252
125,666
251,331
376,997
7,200
14,400
21,600
5,400
10,800
16,200
185,656
371,315
742,630
7,200
14,400
21,600
All Other
Unit
Awards:
Number
of
Units (3)
(#)
Grant
Date Fair
Value of
Unit
Awards
($)
654
611
632
650
16,049
16,448
17,165
16,991
9,120
250,070
281
248
286
296
305
6,896
6,145
7,699
8,039
7,973
622
15,413
63
64
67
75
65
1,696
1,738
1,751
1,841
1,750
(1) Estimated possible payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards represent the ranges of potential cash incentive awards
granted under our Cash Incentive Plan related to fiscal year 2015 for each named executive officer other than Mr. Hatch. For
a description of this plan and available awards please read “Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants
of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Cash Incentive Plan.” Mr. Hatch received a discretionary bonus in the 2015
year rather than an award from the Cash Incentive Plan, therefore his bonus is not reflected in the table above.
(2) Estimated possible payouts under equity incentive plan awards represent the ranges of potential unit based awards earned
under the 2015 Phantom Unit Program as part of the Long-Term Incentive Plan. These units will be awarded in the first
quarter of 2016. For a description of this plan and available awards under the 2015 Phantom Unit Program please read
“Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Long-
Term Incentive Plan.”
169
(3) All other unit awards represent discretionary matching contributions made by us in fiscal year 2015, if any, in connection
with the named executive officer’s deferral of a portion of his cash incentive award under our Cash Incentive Compensation
Plan into the Calumet Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. See “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation” for additional
discussion of this plan. Also included are DERs credited in the form of phantom units earned on discretionary phantom unit
grants, deferred cash incentive awards and discretionary matches on such deferred cash incentive awards.
(4) Ms. Straumins subsequently forfeited the incentive plan awards in connection with her resignation on March 31, 2015.
Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table
Description of Cash Incentive Plan
Annual Distributable Cash Flow goals are recommended by the compensation committee to the board of directors and are
based upon our annual forecast of financial performance for the upcoming fiscal year, and such 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 our actual performance meets at least the minimum
Distributable Cash Flow goal for the fiscal year, executives and certain other management employees may receive incentive awards
ranging from 20% to 50% of base salary, depending on the employee’s position with the general partner. If financial performance
exceeds the minimum Distributable Cash Flow goal, the cash incentive award 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 incentive awards 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 cash incentive awards are paid under the Cash Incentive Plan. The
compensation committee can recommend to the full board of directors, however, that cash awards be given notwithstanding the
fact that we failed to achieve at least the minimum Distributable Cash Flow goal. Awards earned, if any, under this plan are generally
paid in the first quarter of the following fiscal year after finalizing the calculation of our performance relative to the Distributable
Cash Flow targets. The following table summarizes the levels of awards available to participants in the Cash Incentive Plan:
Incentive Level (1)
1
2
3
4
Cash Incentive Award
Calculated as a Percentage of Base Salary
Minimum
Target
Stretch
50%
50%
20%
20%
100%
100%
40%
40%
200%
150%
80%
60%
(1) Messrs. Grube, Murray and Anderson participate in the Cash Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 1. Mr. Juno participates in
the Cash Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 2. Mr. Hatch does not participate in the Cash Incentive Plan but rather received
a potential quarterly performance bonus.
Participants in the Cash Incentive Plan are eligible to defer all or a portion of their award, if any, under the Cash Incentive
Plan into the Deferred Compensation Plan, which was adopted by the board of directors on December 18, 2008 and effective as
of January 1, 2009. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of Executive Compensation — Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan” for additional discussion of this plan.
Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan
Following is a summary of the Long-Term Incentive Plan and the material terms related to phantom units that we may grant
pursuant to the Long-Term Incentive Plan:
General. The Long-Term Incentive 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 DERs. Subject to adjustment for certain events, an aggregate
of 3,883,960 common units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan. Units withheld to satisfy
our general partner’s tax withholding obligations are available for delivery pursuant to other awards. Our general partner’s board
of directors, in its discretion, may terminate the Long-Term Incentive Plan at any time with respect to the common units for which
a grant has not theretofore been made. The Long-Term Incentive Plan will automatically terminate on the earlier of the
10th anniversary of the date it was 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 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Our general partner’s board of directors have the
right to alter or amend the Long-Term Incentive 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
170
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 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
Phantom Units. During 2015, we granted phantom units pursuant to the Long-Term Incentive Plan. 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 phantom units under the Long-Term Incentive Plan to eligible individuals containing such terms, consistent with the Long-
Term Incentive Plan, as the compensation committee may determine, including the period over which phantom units granted will
vest. The compensation committee may, in its discretion, base vesting on the grantee’s completion of a period of service or upon
the achievement of specified financial objectives or other criteria. In addition, the phantom units will vest automatically upon a
change of control (as defined in the Long-Term Incentive Plan) of us or our general partner, subject to any contrary provisions in
the award agreement.
If a grantee’s employment, consulting or membership on the board of directors terminates for any reason, the grantee’s
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. Any outstanding restricted unit or phantom unit awards fully vest upon the occurrence of certain
events including, but not limited to, change of control, death, disability and normal retirement.
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. The compensation committee, in its discretion, may grant tandem DERs with phantom units on such
terms as it deems appropriate.
Participants do 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.
2015 Phantom Unit Program. In addition to the features described above, potential awards under our 2015 Phantom Unit
Program ranged from 1,800 to 10,800 phantom units for achievement of the minimum Distributable Cash Flow goal, 3,600 to
21,600 phantom units for achievement of the target Distributable Cash Flow goal and from 5,400 to 32,400 phantom units for
achievement of the stretch Distributable Cash Flow goal. Awards are not prorated for actual Distributable Cash Flow that is achieved
between the minimum, target and stretch levels. Phantom units that are granted under this program are subject to a time-vesting
requirement, whereby 25% of the units vest immediately at grant and the remainder vest ratably over three years on each
December 31st. At the election of the general partner, phantom unit awards may be settled in either cash or common units. Phantom
units also receive DERs, which are paid in the form of cash.
The following table summarizes the levels of phantom unit awards that were available to participants in the 2015 program:
Incentive Level (1)
1
2
3
4
5
Phantom Unit Award
Opportunity
Minimum
Target
Stretch
10,800
7,200
5,400
3,600
1,800
21,600
14,400
10,800
7,200
3,600
32,400
21,600
16,200
10,800
5,400
(1) Mr. Grube is the only named executive officer who was eligible for a long-term unit-based award under Incentive Level 1.
Messrs. Murray and Anderson were the only employees and named executive officers who were eligible for a long-term
unit-based award under Incentive Level 2. Mr. Juno was the only named executive officer who was eligible for a long-term
unit-based award under Incentive Level 3. Mr. Hatch did not participate in the 2015 Phantom Unit Program, as he received
a one-time phantom unit grant upon his appointment as interim chief executive officer.
171
Description of Employment Agreements
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with F. William Grube, Executive Vice Chairman. We have an amended and
restated employment agreement with Mr. Grube dated as of December 31, 2015 (the “Grube Effective Date”). The initial term of
the amended agreement is five years and will expire on December 31, 2020 (the “Employment Period”), but for the automatic
extensions of an additional twelve months added to the Employment Period beginning on the third anniversary of the Grube
Effective Date, and on every anniversary of the Grube Effective Date thereafter, unless either party notifies the other of non-
extension at least ninety days prior to any such anniversary date.
The agreement provides for an initial annual base salary of approximately $454,363, subject to various adjustments by the
board of directors of our general partner that have been made following the Grube Effective Date, as well as the right to participate
in the Long-Term Incentive Plan, other bonus plans, our retirement, health and welfare benefit plans, and the use of an automobile.
Mr. Grube’s employment agreement may be terminated at any time by either party with proper notice. The potential severance
benefits provided within the employment agreement are described in greater detail in the “Potential Payments Upon Termination
or Change in Control” section below. 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.
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with William H. Hatch, Interim Chief Executive Officer: We have an amended
and restated employment agreement with Mr. Hatch dated as of September 14, 2015 (“Hatch Effective Date”). The agreement
states that Mr. Hatch will remain chief executive officer through December 31, 2015. As of January 1, 2016, Mr. Hatch will continue
with us as an executive advisor through December 31, 2016.
The agreement provides a base salary of $500,000, as well as a retention bonus, a quarterly performance bonus, our retirement,
health and welfare benefit plans and a temporary living package consisting of: (i) apartment rental; (ii) automobile lease for personal
and business use, including vehicle property damage and liability insurance in appropriate amounts; (iii) privately chartered travel
between Tulsa, Oklahoma and Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. Hatch’s employment agreement may be terminated at any time by either
party with proper notice.
Employment Agreement with R. Patrick Murray, II, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We have an
employment agreement with Mr. Murray dated as of May 7, 2014, (the “Murray Effective Date”). The initial term of his employment
agreement is three years and will expire on May 7, 2017, but for the automatic extensions of an additional twelve months 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 180 days prior to any such anniversary date.
The agreement provides for an initial annual base salary of approximately $329,600, subject to various annual adjustments
by the board of directors of our general partner that have been made following the Murray Effective Date, as well as the right to
participate in the Long-Term Incentive Plan, other bonus plans, our retirement, health and welfare benefit plans, and the use of an
automobile. Mr. Murray’s employment agreement may be terminated at any time by either party with proper notice. The potential
severance benefits provided within the employment agreement are described in greater detail in the “Potential Payments Upon
Termination or Change in Control” section below. For the term of his employment agreement and for the one-year period following
the termination of employment, Mr. Murray is prohibited from engaging in competition (as defined in his employment agreement)
with us and soliciting our customers and employees.
Severance and Consulting Agreement with Jennifer G. Straumins. In connection with the termination of Ms. Straumins’
employment on March 31, 2015, we entered into a severance and consulting agreement with Ms. Straumins in May 2015, pursuant
to which Ms. Straumins is entitled to a severance payment of $371,315. The severance agreement further provided for a cash
payment equal to the value she would have received as an Incentive Level 1 employee under our Cash Incentive Plan had the
company achieved the “target” level for calendar year 2015 (described further in the “Narrative Disclosure to Summary
Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table”). Additionally, Ms. Straumins was provided free and clean title to
her company automobile, reimbursed for twelve months of COBRA insurance coverage and paid unused vacation.
We do not maintain employment agreements with Messrs. Anderson or Juno.
Salary in Proportion to Total Compensation
The following table sets forth the percentage of each named executive officer’s total compensation that we paid in the form
of salary for 2015.
172
Salary Percentage for 2015
Name
F. William Grube
William H. Hatch
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
Jennifer G. Straumins
Percentage of
Total
Compensation
26%
56%
27%
27%
28%
10%
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
Our named executive officers had the following outstanding equity awards at December 31, 2015.
Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2015
Name
F. William Grube
William H. Hatch
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
Jennifer G. Straumins (3)
Unit Awards
Number of Units
That Have Not
Vested (1)
Market Value of
Units That Have Not
Vested (2)
22,418
2,280
15,241
14,400
12,221
$
$
$
$
$
— $
446,342
45,395
303,448
286,704
243,320
—
(1) These units are scheduled to vest in amounts and on the dates shown in the following table:
Vesting Date
March 31, 2016
July 1, 2016
December 31, 2016
July 1, 2017
December 31, 2017
July 1, 2018
December 31, 2018
July 1, 2019
Total
F. William
Grube
—
818
8,100
—
8,100
—
5,400
—
22,418
William H. Hatch
2,280
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,280
R. Patrick
Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
—
481
5,400
226
5,400
67
3,600
67
15,241
—
—
5,400
—
5,400
—
3,600
—
14,400
—
168
4,800
168
4,050
168
2,700
167
12,221
(2) Market value of phantom units reported in these columns is calculated by multiplying the closing market price of $19.91 of
our common units at December 31, 2015 (the last trading day of the fiscal year), by the number of units outstanding.
(3) The employment of Ms. Straumins terminated effective as of March 31, 2015, and she forfeited all of her unvested equity
awards upon her departure.
Options Exercises and Stock Vested
Our named executive officers exercised no options and had a total of 57,876 phantom units related to the Deferred
Compensation Plan and the Long-Term Incentive Plan vest during the year ended December 31, 2015. The vested units related to
the Deferred Compensation Plan will remain in the Deferred Compensation Plan until the earlier of the date specified by each
participant and the participant’s termination of employment, as further described under “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation”
below.
173
Unit Awards Vested During Year Ended December 31, 2015
Name
F. William Grube
William H. Hatch
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson
Edward F. Juno
Jennifer G. Straumins
Unit Awards
Number of Units
Vested
Value Realized
on Vesting (1)
20,047
6,840
13,242
10,800
6,812
135
$
$
$
$
$
$
422,718
158,802
277,665
215,028
145,708
3,468
(1) Market value of phantom units reported in this column is calculated by multiplying the closing market price of our common
units on the vesting date by the number of units vesting on such date.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
The Deferred Compensation Plan became effective as of January 1, 2009. The Deferred Compensation Plan is an unfunded
arrangement intended to be exempt from the participation, vesting, funding and fiduciary requirements set forth in Title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and to comply with Section 409A of the Code. Our obligations
under the Deferred Compensation Plan will be general unsecured obligations to pay deferred compensation in the future to eligible
participants in accordance with the terms of the Deferred Compensation Plan from our general assets. The compensation committee
of our general partner’s board of directors acts as the plan administrator. As per his employment agreement, Mr. Hatch was not
eligible to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan.
Name
F. William Grube
R. Patrick Murray, II
Edward F. Juno
Jennifer G. Straumins
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table for 2015
Executive
Contributions
in 2015 (1)
Company
Contributions
in 2015 (2)
Aggregate
Earnings
in 2015 (3)
Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions in
2015 (4)
Aggregate
Balance at End
of 2015 (5)
$
$
$
$
47,920
90,914
— $
$
$
— $
15,968
30,303
— $
$
$
— $
66,653
30,607
5,186
3,590
$
$
$
$
— $
(55,820) $
— $
(86,460) $
694,720
322,980
53,419
—
(1) Executive contributions in 2015 represent phantom units granted to certain of our named executive officers based on their
individual elections to defer all or a portion of their cash incentive award under the Cash Incentive Plan related to the 2015
fiscal year into the Deferred Compensation Plan. All amounts reflected in this column were also reported as compensation
for the 2015 year in the Summary Compensation Table under the heading “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”
(2) Our contributions in 2015 represent discretionary matching contributions made in the form of phantom units granted to our
named executive officers based on their individual elections to defer all or a portion of their cash award under the Cash
Incentive Plan related to the 2015 fiscal year into the Deferred Compensation Plan. These amounts will not be reflected in
the Summary Compensation Table until 2016 for applicable 2016 named executive officers.
(3) Aggregate earnings in 2015 represent additional phantom units earned through DERs in the applicable named executive
officer’s Deferred Compensation Plan account on phantom units granted under the executive contribution and the discretionary
matching contribution in fiscal years 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009. These amounts, which represent the fair value
of the phantom units earned on the corresponding dates of our distributions to our unitholders in fiscal year 2015, are included
as compensation in 2015 under “Unit Awards” in the Summary Compensation Table.
(4) Represents phantom units previously elected to defer upon vesting until July 1, 2015. The amount reported in this column
represents the fair market value of the common units on the distribution date.
(5) While the aggregate balance of each participant’s Deferred Compensation Plan account at the end of the fiscal year is
comprised of the phantom units related to the executive and discretionary matching contributions as well as the phantom
174
units attributable to aggregate earnings accumulated during the 2015 year, the dollar amount of each participant’s account
as of December 31, 2015, was determined by multiplying all phantom units deemed to be included in the participant’s account
by the closing price of our common units on December 31, 2015, which was $19.91. The phantom units associated with each
executive’s account as of December 31, 2015, were as follows: Mr. Grube, 34,893; Mr. Murray, 16,222 and Mr. Juno, 2,683.
Subject to the executive’s continued employment with us, these phantom units will become vested over a four year period
(except for phantom units associated with executive contributions, which are fully vested at the time of cash incentive
deferral), but such vesting applies to the number of phantom units credited to the participant’s account, and not the value of
the account at any given time. The value of the executives’ accounts will fluctuate due to the fact that the value of their
phantom units will track the value of our common units. Also, please keep in mind that the executives’ accounts are not
currently fully vested; subject to the forfeiture provisions described below, these amounts do not reflect the payout amount
that an executive would receive if he voluntarily left our service prior to vesting. The amounts in this column also include
amounts that were previously reported as compensation in the Summary Compensation Table during previous years as
follows: (a) for 2009, Mr. Grube, $113,348; and Mr. Murray, $49,354 (b) for 2010, Mr. Grube, $115,373 (c) for 2011,
Mr. Grube, $160,800; and Mr. Murray, $52,664 (d) for 2012, Mr. Murray, $58,384 (e) for 2014, Mr. Murray, $18,412 and
Mr. Juno, $46,264.
The named executive officers, as well as other officers and key employees, participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan
by making an annual irrevocable election to defer all or a portion of their annual cash incentive award for the year. The deferred
amounts will be credited to the participants’ accounts in the form of phantom units, and will receive DERs to be credited in the
form of additional phantom units to the participants’ account. We have the discretion to make matching contributions of phantom
units or purely discretionary contributions of phantom units, in amounts and at times as the compensation committee determines
appropriate. For the 2015 year, the compensation committee authorized matching contributions of deferred amounts related to the
2015 fiscal year. For each equivalent three phantom units credited to a participant’s account at the time the 2015 cash incentive
award will be paid during the first quarter of 2015, we will match with one additional phantom unit credited to the participant’s
account. Participants will at all times be 100% vested in amounts they have deferred; however, amounts we have contributed may
be subject to a vesting schedule, as determined appropriate by the compensation committee. The 2015 matching contributions
related to fiscal year 2015 will vest ratably over four years on each July 1 beginning July 1, 2017. The participants’ accounts are
adjusted at least quarterly to determine the fair market value of our phantom units, as well as any DERs that may have been credited
in that time period. Distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan are payable on the earlier of the date specified by each
participant and the participant’s termination of employment. Death, disability, normal retirement or our change of control (as such
terms are defined within the Long-Term Incentive Plan) require automatic distribution of the Deferred Compensation Plan benefits,
and will also accelerate at that time the vesting of any portion of a participant’s account that has not already become vested. Benefits
will be distributed to participants in the form of our common units, cash or a combination of common units and cash at the election
of the compensation committee. In the event that accounts are paid in common units, such units will be distributed pursuant to the
Long-Term Incentive Plan. Unvested portions of a participant’s account will be forfeited in the event that a distribution was due
to a participant’s voluntary resignation or a termination for cause. To ensure compliance with Section 409A of the Code, distributions
to participants that are considered “key employees” (as defined in Code Section 409A of the Code) may be delayed for a period
of six months following such key employees’ termination of employment with us.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
We provide certain of our named executive officers with certain severance and change in control benefits in order to provide
them with assurances against certain types of terminations without cause or resulting from change in control transactions where
the terminations were not based upon cause. This type of protection is intended to provide the executive with a basis for keeping
focus and functioning in the unitholders’ interests at all times. In addition to the potential acceleration of our equity-based awards
upon certain events, our employment agreements with Messrs. Grube and Murray contain severance and change in control
provisions. Although Mr. Hatch’s position as our interim chief executive officer terminated on December 31, 2015, he did not
receive any severance benefits in connection with the termination and therefore is not shown in the table below.
In the event that severance payments are triggered under the applicable employment agreement, Messrs. Grube and Murray
will be eligible to receive payments as soon as administratively possible, though if Code Section 409A would subject them to
additional taxes upon receipt of the payments, we will delay the payment of these amounts for a period of six months and provide
for interest to accrue on such delayed amounts at the maximum nonusurious rate from the date of the originally scheduled payment
date. Messrs. Grube and Murray are also eligible to receive an additional sum from us in the event that any termination payments
we provide to them is considered “parachute” payments pursuant to Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”); a parachute payment could occur in connection with a change in control or a termination of employment
that was also in connection with a change in control, but such a payment would not occur in the event of a termination of
Messrs. Grube’s and Murray’s employment that is not in connection with a change in control. This additional payment, if necessary,
would equal the amount necessary to place them in the same after-tax position they would have been in absent the additional excise
taxes imposed by Section 280G of the Code. Lastly, severance potentially payable to the executives under their employment
175
agreements is partially provided in consideration for the executive’s agreement not to compete with us or solicit our employees
for a period of one year following a termination of employment.
The employment agreements in place as of December 31, 2015, contain the following definitions for each of the possible
“triggering events” that could result in a termination payment to the below referenced named executive officers:
• Cause. Mr. Grube may be terminated for cause due to: (i) Mr. Grube’s willful and continuing failure (excluding as a result
of his mental or physical incapacity) to perform his duties and responsibilities with us; (ii) Mr. Grube’s having committed
any act of material dishonesty against us or any of our affiliates (including theft, misappropriation, embezzlement, forgery,
fraud, or willful and intentional falsification of records or misrepresentations); (iii) Mr. Grube’s willful and continuing
material breach of the employment agreement; (iv) Mr. Grube’s having been convicted of, or having entered a plea of
nolo contendre to any felony; or (v) Mr. Grube’s having been the subject of any final and non-appealable order, judicial
or administrative, obtained or issued by the SEC, for any securities violation involving fraud, including, for example, any
such order consented to by Mr. Grube in which findings of facts or any legal conclusions establishing liability are neither
admitted nor denied.
Mr. Murray may be terminated for cause if: (i) Mr. Murray materially breaches his employment agreement or any other
compensatory agreement (including any equity or incentive-based compensation agreement (with any member of the
Company Group (as defined in his agreement) or any Affiliate (as defined in his agreement) thereof, including his material
breach of any representation, warranty or covenant made under his agreement, or his material breach of any policy, code
of conduct or code of ethics established by a member of the Company Group and applicable to him; (ii) Mr. Murray’s
commission of an act of fraud, theft or embezzlement, in each case having the effect of materially injuring our business
or interests; (iii) Mr. Murray’s commissions of an act of gross negligence, willful misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty;
(iv) the conviction of Mr. Murray, or a plea of nolo contendere by him, to any felony (or state law equivalent) or any
crime involving moral turpitude; or (v) Mr. Murray’s willful failure or refusal (other than due to executive’s disability)
to perform his obligations pursuant to his agreement or to follow any lawful directive from us, as determined by the board
of directors; provided, however, that if his actions or omissions are of such a nature that they may be cured, such actions
or omissions must remain uncured 30 days after the Company or the board of directors has provided him written notice
of the obligation to cure such actions or omissions.
• Change in Control. Messrs. Grube’s and Murray’s agreements state that a change in control may occur upon any of the
following events:
any “person” or “group,” within the meaning of those terms as used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, other than the Company or its Affiliates, or Fred M. Fehsenfeld Jr. or F. William
Grube or their respective immediate families or Affiliates, becomes the beneficial owner, by way or merger,
consolidation, recapitalization, reorganization or otherwise, of 50% or more of the voting power of the outstanding
equity interests of the Company;
a person or entity other than the Company or an Affiliate of the Company becomes the general partner of the Company;
or
the sale or other disposition, including by liquidation or dissolution, of all or substantially all of the assets of the
Company in one or more transactions to any person other than an Affiliate of the Company.
• Good Reason. Good reason under Mr. Grube’s 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 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. Grube’s 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 our executive vice chairman.
Mr. Murray has the right to terminate employment under their employment agreements, upon the occurrence of any of
the following good reason events, within 60 days of, and in connection with or based upon, without his prior consent: (i)
material diminution in his total compensation opportunity in effect on the Effective Date; (ii) material breach by us of
any of our covenants or obligations under his agreement; (iii) material reduction in his authority, duties or responsibilities
or reporting relationships; (iv) the involuntary relocation of the geographic location of his principal place of employment
by more than 30 miles from the location of his principal place of employment as of the Effective Date; and (v) following
a Change in Control (as defined in the agreement), our failure to obtain an agreement from any successor to us to assume
and agree to perform this agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that we would be required to perform if
no succession had taken place, except where such assumption occurs by operation of law; provided however, that
notwithstanding the foregoing provisions or any other provisions of his agreement to the contrary, any assertion by him
176
of a termination for Good Reason (as defined in his agreement) shall not be effective unless all of the following conditions
are satisfied: (i) the conditions described above giving rise to his termination of employment must have arisen without
his consent; (ii) he must provide written notice to the Board of the existence of such condition(s) within 30 days of the
initial existence of such condition(s); (iii) the condition(s) specified in such notice must remain uncorrected for 30 days
following the Board’s receipt of such written notice; and (iv) the date of his termination of employment must occur within
60 days after the initial existence of the condition(s) specified in such notice.
• Totally Disabled. Disabled under Mr. Grube’s employment agreement states that 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 (i) in the written
opinion of a qualified physician reasonably acceptable to us is delivered to us within 30 days of our delivery to Mr. Grube
of a notice of termination (as defined in the employment agreement), 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 (ii) Mr. Grube does resume such
duties within such time.
Under Mr. Murray’s employment agreements we have the right to terminate his employment if he is unable to perform,
with reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of his position by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment or other incapacity that can be reasonably expected to result in death or can be reasonably expected
to last for a period in excess of 180 days, whether or not consecutive.
Although Mr. Hatch’s position as our interim chief executive officer terminated on December 31, 2015, he did not receive
any severance benefits in connection with the termination.
As part of Ms. Straumins’ resignation, we entered into a severance and consulting agreement with her. The agreement
provided for a one-year term of consulting service and service payment of $371,315. The severance agreement further provided
for a cash payment equal to the value she would have received as an Incentive Level 1 employee under our Cash Incentive Plan
had the company achieved the “target” level for calendar year 2015 (described further in the “Narrative Disclosure to Summary
Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table”). Additionally, Ms. Straumins was provided free and clean title to
her company automobile, reimbursed for twelve months of COBRA insurance coverage and paid unused vacation. As a condition
to receiving such severance amounts, Ms. Straumins has agreed to (i) customary non-disclosure and non-use restrictions, (ii) release
the Company and its affiliates from any liability, and (iii) customary non-disparagement restrictions.
Change of Control Pursuant to Long-Term Incentive Plan
Unless specifically provided otherwise in the named executive officers’ individual award agreement, upon a Change of
Control all outstanding awards granted pursuant to the Long-Term Incentive Plan prior to December 10, 2015 (the date of the last
amendment and restatement of the Long-Term Incentive Plan) shall automatically vest and be payable at their maximum target
level or become exercisable in full, as the case may be, or any restricted periods connected to the award shall terminate and all
performance criteria, if any, shall be deemed to have been achieved at the maximum level. We provided these “single-trigger”
change of control benefits because we believed such benefits were important retention tools for us, as providing for accelerated
vesting of awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan upon a Change of Control enables employees, including the named executive
officers, to realize value from these awards in the event that we go through a change of control transaction. In addition, we believed
that it was important to provide the named executive officers with a sense of stability, both in the middle of transactions that may
create uncertainty regarding their future employment and post-termination as they seek future employment. Whether or not a
change of control results in a termination of our officers’ employment with us or a successor entity, we wanted to provide our
officers with certain guarantees regarding the importance of equity incentive compensation awards they were granted prior to that
change of control. Further, we believe that change of control protection allows management to focus their attention and energy on
the business transaction at hand without any distractions regarding the effects of a change of control. Also, we believe that such
protection maximizes unitholder value by encouraging the named executive officers to review objectively any proposed transaction
in determining whether such proposed transaction is in the best interest of our unitholders, whether or not the executive will
continue to be employed.
For purposes of the Long-Term Incentive Plan, a Change of Control shall be deemed to have occurred upon one or more of
the following events: (i) any person or group, other than a person or group who is our affiliate, becomes the beneficial owner, by
way of merger, consolidation, recapitalization, reorganization or otherwise, of fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of
our outstanding equity interests; (ii) a person or group, other than our general partner or one of our general partner’s affiliates,
becomes our general partner; or (iii) the sale or other disposition, including by liquidation or dissolution, of all or substantially all
of our assets or the assets of our general partner in one or more transactions to any person or group other than an a person or group
who is our affiliate. However, in the event that an award is subject to Code Section 409A, a Change of Control shall have the same
meaning as such term in the regulations or other guidance issued with respect to Code Section 409A for that particular award.
177
Under the Long-Term Incentive Plan, awards that were outstanding as of December 31, 2015, will also accelerate upon a
termination due to death, disability or a normal retirement upon or after reaching the age of 66. The Board has the final authority
to determine if a disability is permanent or of a long term duration resulting in termination from us. A “disability” per the terms
of the Long-Term Incentive Plan grant means (i) a participant’s inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of
a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of
12 months, or (ii) the participant is, by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months, receiving income replacement benefits for a period of not less than 3 months
under one of our accident and health plans. We have determined that providing acceleration of the Long-Term Incentive Plan
awards upon a death or disability is appropriate because the termination of a participant’s employment with us due to such an
occurrence is often an unexpected event, and it is our belief that providing an immediate value to the participant or his family, as
appropriate, in such a situation is a competitive retention tool. We also believe that providing for acceleration upon a normal
retirement is appropriate due to the fact that the definition of a normal retirement requires an executive to remain employed with
us until late in his career, and the acceleration of their equity awards upon such an event provides the executives with a reassurance
that they will receive value for their awards at the end of their career. We have determined that it is in the unitholders’ best interest
to provide such retention tools with respect to our equity compensation awards due to the fact that we strive to retain a high level
of executive talent while competing in a very aggressive industry.
Change of Control with Respect to Deferred Compensation Plan Participants
The Deferred Compensation Plan provides the executives with the opportunity to defer all or a portion of their eligible
compensation each year. At the time of their deferral election, the executive may choose a day in the future in which a payout from
the plan will occur with regard to their vested account balance, or, if earlier, the payout of vested accounts will occur upon the
executive’s termination from service for any reason. Despite the executive’s payout election date, however, the Deferred
Compensation Plan accounts will also receive accelerated vesting and a pay out in the event of the executive’s termination from
service due to death, disability or normal retirement, or upon the occurrence of a Change of Control.
A “disability” under the Deferred Compensation Plan means (i) a participant’s inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of 12 months, or (ii) the participant is, by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to
result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months, receiving income replacement benefits for a period
of not less than 3 months under one of our accident and health plans. A “normal retirement” means a participant’s termination of
employment on or after the date that he or she reaches the age of 66.
There are various connections between the Deferred Compensation Plan and the Long-Term Incentive Plan. A “Change of
Control” for the Deferred Compensation Plan shall have the same definition as that term within the Long-Term Incentive Plan
noted above. Our compensation committee also has the discretion to pay Deferred Compensation Plan accounts in either cash or
our common units. In the event that a Deferred Compensation Plan account is settled in our common units, those units will be
issued pursuant to the Long-Term Incentive Plan. For purposes of this disclosure we have assumed that the compensation committee
would determine to settle the Deferred Compensation Plan accounts solely in our common units, meaning that the amounts below
would reflect the fair market value of common units that could be issued pursuant to the Long-Term Incentive Plan in connection
with a termination of employment or a Change of Control. Please note that the compensation committee’s decision regarding such
a settlement could not be determined with any certainty until such an event actually occurred.
178
The table below reflects the amount of compensation payable to our named executive officers in the event of a termination
of employment or a change in control of the Company on December 31, 2015. For purposes of calculating the potential payments,
we have made certain assumptions that we have determined to be reasonable and relevant to our unitholders. Mr. Hatch is not
included in the table below due to the fact that his role as our interim chief executive officer, which made him a named executive
officer for the 2015 fiscal year, terminated on December 31, 2015, and there were no benefits or payments that became due to him
at the time for us to report. Ms. Straumins is not included in the table below due to the fact that she resigned prior to the end of
fiscal year 2015.
Name
F. William
Grube
R. Patrick
Murray, II
William A.
Anderson
Edward F. Juno
Benefits
Base Salary (1)
Compensation Incentive Awards (2)
Long-Term Incentive Plan (3)
Deferred Compensation Plan (4)
Total
Base Salary (1)
Compensation Incentive Awards (2)
Long-Term Incentive Plan (3)
Deferred Compensation Plan (4)
Post-Employment Health Care (5)
Outplacement Assistance (6)
Total
Long-Term Incentive Plan (3)
Total
Long-Term Incentive Plan (3)
Deferred Compensation Plan (4)
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Termination by
Us Without
Cause, or Good
Reason
Termination by
Executive
Termination by
Us for Cause, or
Without Good
Reason
Termination by
Executive
Termination by
Us Without
Cause, or Good
Reason
Termination, in
Connection with
a Change in
Control
Termination Due
to Death or
Disability
Change in
Control
$
1,363,089
$
— $
1,363,089
$
— $
641,351
752,598
694,720
3,451,758
509,232
646,920
501,732
323,418
8,885
50,000
2,040,187
501,732
501,732
433,043
174,631
$
$
$
$
$
$
—
—
678,433
641,351
752,598
694,720
678,433
$
3,451,758
— $
1,018,464
—
—
306,326
—
—
1,293,841
501,732
323,418
26,654
50,000
306,326
$
3,214,109
— $
— $
— $
40,059
501,732
501,732
433,043
174,631
$
$
$
$
$
$
641,351
752,598
694,720
—
—
752,598
694,720
2,088,669
$
1,447,318
— $
431,280
501,732
323,418
—
—
1,256,430
501,732
501,732
433,043
174,631
$
$
$
$
—
—
501,732
323,418
—
—
825,150
501,732
501,732
433,043
174,631
607,674
$
40,059
$
607,674
$
607,674
$
607,674
(1) As per their employment agreements, Mr. Grube will receive 3 times his base salary and Mr. Murray will receive 3 times his
base salary if a qualifying termination occurs within twenty-four months following a Change in Control (“Change in Control
Period”) or 1.5 times his base salary if the qualifying termination occurs at any time other than the Change in Control Period.
(2) As per their employment agreements, for termination due to death or disability, Messrs. Grube and Murray will be entitled
to receive a pro rata portion of any incentive compensation awards for the bonus year in which the termination occurs. For
termination for good reason by the executive or by us without cause, Mr. Grube will be entitled to receive a pro rata portion
of any compensation incentive awards for the bonus year in which the termination occurs and Mr. Murray will be entitled
to 3 times his cash incentive bonus if a qualifying termination occurs with the Change in Control Period or 1.5 times his cash
incentive bonus if the termination occurs at any time other than the Change in Control Period. For termination without good
reason by executive or by us with cause, Messrs. Grube and Murray will not be entitled to any pro rata portion of incentive
compensation awards.
(3) All amounts assume that the executives received full vesting of equity awards due to the applicable qualifying termination
or Change in Control event, and the value of all phantom units pursuant to equity awards under the Long-Term Incentive
Plan were valued at our December 31, 2015, closing common unit price of $19.91. As required pursuant to Section 409A of
the Code, in the event that any of the executives are also “key employees” as defined in Section 409A of the Code at the time
a settlement would become due, we would delay the settlement of such an executive’s equity awards until the first day of
the seventh month following the applicable event requiring settlement of equity awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan.
(4) Amounts assume that the executives received full vesting of the accounts due to the applicable qualifying termination or
Change in Control event or in the event of termination for cause, just the vested balance, and the value of all phantom units
held in the Deferred Compensation Plan accounts was valued at our December 31, 2015, closing common unit price of
179
$19.91. As required pursuant to Section 409A of the Code, in the event that any of the executives are also “key employees”
as defined in Section 409A of the Code at the time a settlement would become due, we would delay the settlement of such
an executive’s account until the first day of the seventh month following the applicable event requiring settlement of the
Deferred Compensation Plan account.
(5) Per the employment agreement of Mr. Murray, in connection with certain qualifying terminations, if the executive timely
and properly elects continuation coverage under the Company’s group health plans pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus
Reconciliation act of 1985 (“COBRA”) then: (i) the Company shall reimburse the executive for the difference between the
monthly amount the executive pays to effect and continue such coverage for himself and spouse and eligible dependents, if
any, and the monthly employee contribution amount that active similarly situated employees of the Company pay for the
same or similar coverage under such group health plans; and (ii) on and after the date the executive is no longer eligible to
receive COBRA continuation coverage, if the executive has not become eligible to receive coverage under a group health
plan sponsored by another employer, then the Company shall pay a lump sum cash payment equal to the product of (x) the
monthly reimbursement amount and (y) (A) if such termination does not occur within the Change of Control Period, 6 and
(B) if such termination occurs within the Change in Control Period, 18.
(6) Per the employment agreement for Mr. Murray, in connection with certain qualifying terminations, for the 12-month period
beginning on his termination date, or until the executive begins other full-time employment with a new employer, whichever
occurs first, the executive shall be entitled to receive outplacement services that are directly related to the termination of the
executive’s employment and are provided by a nationally prominent executive outplacement services firm, provided however,
that the total amount of the expenses paid by Company shall not exceed $50,000. A maximum payment is assumed to be
made.
Compensation of Directors
Officers or employees of our general partner who also serve as directors do not receive additional compensation for their
service as a director of our general partner. Each director who is not an officer or employee of our general partner receives an
annual fee as well as compensation for attending meetings of the board of directors and board committee meetings. Non-employee
director compensation for 2015 consists of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
an annual fee of $50,000, payable in quarterly installments;
an annual award of restricted or phantom units with a market value of approximately $100,000;
an audit committee chair annual fee of $10,000, payable in quarterly installments;
a non-chair audit committee member annual fee of $6,000, payable in quarterly installments;
all other committee chair annual fee of $5,000, payable in quarterly installments; and
all other committee member annual fee of $2,500, payable in quarterly installments.
In addition, we reimburse each non-employee director for his or her out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with
attending meetings of the board of directors or board committees. Under certain circumstances, we will also indemnify each director
for his or her actions associated with being a director to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law.
The following table sets forth certain compensation information of our non-employee directors for the year ended
December 31, 2015:
Name
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
George C. Morris III
Daniel J. Sajkowski
Amy M. Schumacher
Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash
Director Compensation Table for 2015
Unit
Awards (1)
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
55,000
61,000
58,500
60,000
50,000
50,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
173,098
182,356
134,663
154,503
99,996
115,122
$
$
$
$
$
$
228,098
243,356
193,163
214,503
149,996
165,122
(1) The amounts in this column are calculated based on the aggregate grant date fair value of (i) annual phantom unit awards to
all non-employee directors, (ii) matching phantom unit awards granted to those non-employee directors who deferred all of
the fees they earned in 2015 pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan and (iii) DERs credited in the form of phantom
units earned on deferred fees and discretionary matches on such deferred fees. Please see “Compensation Discussion and
180
Analysis — Elements of Executive Compensation — Executive Deferred Compensation Plan” for a discussion of how we
calculated these values. The amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC
Topic 718. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, for a discussion
of the assumptions used to determine the FASB ASC Topic 718 value of the awards.
Annual Phantom Unit Awards
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
George C. Morris III
Daniel J. Sajkowski
Amy M. Schumacher
Annual Director Phantom Unit Awards
Grant Date
January 7, 2016
January 7, 2016
January 7, 2016
January 7, 2016
January 7, 2016
January 7, 2016
Number of
Units Granted (1)
Aggregate Grant
Date Fair Value
5,288
5,288
5,288
5,288
5,288
5,288
$
$
$
$
$
$
99,996
99,996
99,996
99,996
99,996
99,996
(1) With respect to this award, 25% of the phantom units vested immediately, entitling the director to receive an equal number
of common units, with an additional 25% vesting on December 31st of each of the three successive years.
The following table summarizes the aggregate balance of each director’s outstanding annual awards as of December 31,
2015:
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
George C. Morris III
Daniel J. Sajkowski
Amy M. Schumacher
Total
Annual Director Phantom Unit Awards
Number of Units
That Have Not
Vested
Market Value of
Units That Have Not
Vested (1)
5,616
5,616
5,616
5,616
4,341
4,341
31,146
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
111,815
111,815
111,815
111,815
86,429
86,429
620,118
(1) The market value of each director’s unvested phantom units as of December 31, 2015 was determined by multiplying all
unvested phantom units by the closing price of our common units on December 31, 2015, which was $19.91.
Deferred Compensation Plan
Messrs. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Carter, Funk and Morris and Ms. Schumacher each elected to defer all of their fees earned related
to fiscal year 2015 into the Deferred Compensation Plan. These deferred amounts are credited to the participant’s account in the
form of phantom units, and will receive DERs to be credited to the participant’s account in the form of additional phantom units
on the corresponding dates of our distributions to our unitholders. The compensation committee recommended, and the board of
directors approved, a matching contribution of one phantom unit for each equivalent three phantom units deferred for those fees
earned related to fiscal year 2015. Phantom units credited to a participant’s account pursuant to matching contributions also carry
DERs to be credited to the participant’s account in the form of additional phantom units. The matching contribution for each
participant for fiscal year 2015 was made on a quarterly basis as of the date of our quarterly board meetings related to fiscal year
2015.
181
The following table summarizes the aggregate balance of each director’s Deferred Compensation Plan account at the end
of the fiscal year:
Name
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
George C. Morris III
Amy M. Schumacher
Director Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table for 2015
Number
of Units
Aggregate
Balance at end
of 2015 (1)
28,963
32,948
10,716
17,182
1,972
$
$
$
$
$
576,653
655,995
213,356
342,094
39,263
(1) The dollar amount of each director’s account as of December 31, 2015 was determined by multiplying all phantom units
deemed to be included in the participant’s account by the closing price of our common units on December 31, 2015, which
was $19.91.
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 executive
vice chairman of the board of our general partner. Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr. is the chairman of the board of our general partner. Please
read Item 13 “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence — Specialty Product Sales and Related
Purchases” for descriptions of our transactions in fiscal year 2015 with certain entities related to Messrs. Grube and F. 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.
Risk Considerations in our Overall Compensation Program
Our compensation policies and practices are designed to provide rewards for high levels of financial performance. Currently,
our incentive compensation programs are based on performance, at the Company level, relative to goals we set for Distributable
Cash Flow. In our assessment of risk related to such use of a single financial performance metric, we considered the relative
difficulty for any employee to engage in an undue amount of risk-taking activity with a result that would be reasonably likely to
have a material adverse effect on us due to the breadth and scope of activities, both operational and financial, across that organization
that are captured in the calculation of Distributable Cash Flow. Also, we considered the current approval controls that exist to
mitigate against excessive risk-taking that might impact Distributable Cash Flow and, in turn, our compensation programs. For
example, we have specific approval policies related to the entry into derivative instruments, material commercial agreements and
significant capital expenditures. Also, our full board of directors, as well as through the actions of its various committees, regularly
assesses our key risk areas to monitor the impacts of such risks on our financial performance. Further, we considered the design
of our incentive compensation programs, noting that the inclusion of both shorter-term cash incentive awards and longer-term unit
awards further align the interest our employees and its unitholders. As a result of these considerations, we have concluded that the
risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for our employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on us.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Unitholder Matters
The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our units as of February 29, 2016, 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.
182
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. Except as indicated by
footnote, the address for the beneficial owners listed below is 2780 Waterfront Parkway East Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana,
46214.
Name of Beneficial Owner
The Heritage Group (1)(2)
Calumet, Incorporated (2)
F. William Grube (3)(4)
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. (1)(2)(5)(6)
Timothy Go
R. Patrick Murray, II
William A. Anderson (7)
Edward F. Juno
George C. Morris III (8)
James S. Carter
Robert E. Funk
Daniel J. Sajkowski
Amy M. Schumacher (1)(7)(9)
All directors and executive officers as a group (11 persons)
*
= less than 1 percent.
Common
Units
Beneficially
Owned
Percentage of
Total Units
Beneficially
Owned
11,867,533
1,934,287
943,898
680,134
1,577
49,727
24,074
6,478
95,523
52,591
44,545
5,098
14,798
15.64%
2.55%
1.24%
0.90%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1,918,443
2.53%
(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 Amy
M. Schumacher, each of whom exercises equivalent voting rights with respect to each such trust. Each of Fred M. Fehsenfeld,
Jr. and Amy M. Schumacher, who are directors of our general partner, disclaims beneficial ownership of all of the common
units owned by The Heritage Group, and none of these units are shown as being beneficially owned by such directors in the
table above. Of these common units, 367,197 are owned by The Heritage Group Investment Company, LLC (“Investment
LLC”). Investment LLC is under common ownership with The Heritage Group. The Heritage Group, although not the owner
of the common units, serves as the Manager of Investment LLC, and in that capacity has sole voting and investment power
over the common units. The Heritage Group disclaims beneficial ownership of the common units owned by Investment LLC
except to the extent of its pecuniary interest therein. The address for The Heritage Group is 5400 W. 86th St., Indianapolis,
Indiana, 46268.
(2) The common units of Calumet, Incorporated are indirectly owned 45.8% by The Heritage Group and 5.1% by Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr. personally. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. is also a director of Calumet, Incorporated. Accordingly, 885,294 of the
common units owned by Calumet, Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned by The Heritage Group in the
table above, and 97,971 of the common units owned by Calumet, Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned
by Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. in the table above. The Heritage Group and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. disclaim beneficial ownership
of all of the common units owned by Calumet, Incorporated in excess of their respective pecuniary interests in such units.
The address of Calumet, Incorporated is 5400 W. 86th St., Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Includes 775,000 common units that are owned by AEG Associates II, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (“AEG
II”). F. William Grube has sole voting and investment power over the common units. AEG II is co-owned by F. William
Grube, William F. Grube, Jennifer G. Straumins and one grantor retained annuity trust for which Jennifer G. Straumins serves
as sole trustee. F. William Grube disclaims beneficial ownership of the common units owned by AEG II except to the extent
of his pecuniary interest therein.
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of F. William Grube, for which he disclaims beneficial ownership.
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and certain children of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., for which he disclaims
beneficial ownership.
183
(6) Does not include a total of 1,979,804 common 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 Amy M. Schumacher, each of whom exercises equivalent voting rights
with respect to each such trust. Each of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. and Amy M. Schumacher, who are directors of our general
partner, disclaims beneficial ownership of all of the common units owned by the trusts, and none of these units are shown
as being beneficially owned by such directors in the table above.
(7)
(8)
(9)
Includes common units that are owned by the children of William A. Anderson, for which he disclaims beneficial ownership.
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of George C. Morris III, for which he disclaims beneficial ownership.
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and children of Amy M. Schumacher, for which she disclaims beneficial
ownership. The address of Amy M. Schumacher is 6510 Telecom Dr., Suite 425, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268.
184
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table summarizes information about our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2015:
Long-Term Incentive Plan
Total
Number of Securities
to be Issued Upon
Exercise of Outstanding
Options, Warrants
and Rights (1)
(a)
Weighted-Average
Exercise Price
of Outstanding
Options, Warrants
and Rights
(b)
Number of Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under
Equity Compensation
Plans (Excluding
Securities Reflected
in Column (a))
(c)
1,173,820
1,173,820
$
—
—
2,099,066
2,099,066
(1) The Long-Term Incentive Plan contemplates the issuance or delivery of up to 3,883,960 common units to satisfy awards
under the plan. The number of units presented in column (a) assumes that all outstanding grants may 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 will be withheld for taxes. Any units not issued upon vesting will become
“available for future issuance” under Column (c). For more information on our Long-Term Incentive Plan, which did not
require approval by our limited partners, refer to Item 11 “Executive and Director Compensation — Narrative Disclosure to
Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table — Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan.”
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence
Distributions and Payments to Our General Partner and its Affiliates
Owners of our general partner and their affiliates own 16,260,480 common units representing a 21.4% limited partner interest
in us. In addition, our general partner owns a 2% general partner interest in us and all of the incentive distribution rights. Our
general partner is entitled to receive incentive distributions if the amount we distribute with respect to any quarter exceeds levels
specified in our partnership agreement. Under the quarterly incentive distribution provisions, generally our general partner is
entitled, without duplication, to 15% of amounts we distribute in excess of $0.495 ($1.98 annualized) per unit, 25% of the amounts
we distribute in excess of $0.563 ($2.25 annualized) per unit and 50% of amounts we distribute in excess of $0.675 ($2.70
annualized) per unit. Please refer to Part II, Item 5 “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities — Market Information” for a summary of cash distribution levels of the Company during
the year ended December 31, 2015, and for additional information related to incentive distribution rights.
Our general partner does not receive any management fee or other compensation for its management of our partnership;
however, our general partner and its affiliates are reimbursed for all expenses incurred on our behalf. These expenses include the
cost of employee, officer and director compensation and 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 determines
the expenses that are allocable to us. There is no limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner and its affiliates
may be reimbursed.
Omnibus Agreement
We entered into an omnibus agreement, dated January 31, 2006, with The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates pursuant
to which The Heritage Group and its controlled affiliates agreed not to engage in, whether by acquisition or otherwise, the business
of refining or marketing specialty lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel products in
the continental U.S. (“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;
185
•
•
any restricted business acquired or constructed that has a fair market value or construction cost, as applicable, of
$5.0 million or more if we have been offered the opportunity to purchase it for fair market value or construction cost and
we decline to do so with the concurrence of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner; and
any business conducted by The Heritage Group with the approval of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of
our general partner.
Product Sales and Related Purchases
During 2015, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty products to Johann Haltermann, Ltd. (“Haltermann”), a
specialty chemical company owned in part by The Heritage Group. Amy M. Schumacher is president of Monument Chemicals,
Inc., which is the parent company of Johann Haltermann, Ltd. The total sales made by us to Haltermann in 2015 were approximately
$2.7 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was a $0.1 million balance due us from Haltermann related to these products sales.
We anticipate that we will continue to sell products to Haltermann in the future. We believe that the product sales prices and credit
terms offered to Haltermann are comparable to prices and terms offered to non-affiliated third party customers.
During 2015, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty products to Heritage-Crystal Clean Inc. (“Crystal Clean”),
a cleaning and waste removal company owned in part by The Heritage Group and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. as an individual. The
total sales made by us to Crystal Clean in 2015 were approximately $0.5 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was no balance
due us from Crystal Clean related to these products sales. We anticipate that we will continue to sell products to Crystal Clean in
the future. The total purchases made by us from Crystal Clean in 2015 for cleaning and waste removal services were approximately
$2.6 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was a $0.4 million balance due from us to Crystal Clean related to these purchases.
We believe that the product sales prices and credit terms offered to Crystal Clean are comparable to prices and terms offered to
non-affiliated third party customers.
During 2015, we made ordinary course purchases from Heritage Environmental Services (“Heritage Environmental”), a
cleaning and waste removal company owned in part by The Heritage Group and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. as an individual. Total
purchases made by us from Heritage Environmental in 2015 for cleaning and waste removal services were approximately $1.8
million. As of December 31, 2015, there was a $0.5 million balance due from us to Heritage Environmental related to these
purchases.
During 2015, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty products to Advanced Aromatics (“Advanced Aromatics”),
a specialty chemical company owned in part by The Heritage Group. Amy M. Schumacher is president of Monument Chemicals,
Inc., which is the parent company of Advanced Aromatics. The total sales made by us to Advanced Aromatics in 2015 were
approximately $1.0 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was an immaterial balance due us from Advanced Aromatics related
to these products sales. We anticipate that we will continue to sell products to Heritage Advanced in the future.
During 2015, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty products to Heritage Advanced Products, LLC (“Heritage
Advanced”), a specialty chemical company owned in part by The Heritage Group. The total sales made by us to Heritage Advanced
in 2015 were approximately $0.4 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was an immaterial balance due us from Heritage
Advanced related to these products sales. We anticipate that we will continue to sell products to Heritage Advanced in the future.
During 2015, we made payments to Asphalt Materials, Inc., an affiliate of The Heritage Group (“Asphalt Materials”), for
expenses related to the business use of The Heritage Group’s company plane by our senior executive officers and for environmental
consulting services provided to us by Asphalt Materials. The aggregate payments for these services made by us to Asphalt Materials
in 2015 were approximately $0.5 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was a $0.1 million amount due from us to Asphalt
Materials related to these services. We believe that the costs of the services provided to us by Asphalt Materials are comparable
to costs charged by non-affiliated third-party suppliers of similar services. During 2015, we made ordinary course sales of certain
fuel products to Asphalt Materials of $7.4 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was a $0.3 million balance due us from Asphalt
Materials related to these products sales. We expect that we will continue to utilize each of these services from Asphalt Materials
in the future.
Administrative Services
During 2015, we entered into an agreement for logistic administration/support, general administrative management and fiscal
administration services with Monument Chemicals, Inc. (“Monument Chemical”). Monument Chemical is owned by a The Heritage
Group and Amy M. Schumacher is president of Monument Chemical. Under this agreement, Monument Chemical will rent storage
tanks in Belgium on our behalf and organize delivery of products to our customers. A commission will be paid to Monument
Chemical based on the sales value invoiced to our customers. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we paid total commissions
and general administrative fees of $0.5 million. As of December 31, 2015, there was $0.5 million due from us to Monument
Chemical. We expect that we will continue to utilize these services from Monument Chemical in the future.
186
During 2015, we reimbursed The Heritage Group $0.4 million for fees related to our search for our chief executive officer.
As of December 31, 2015, there was no amount due from us to The Heritage Group related to the reimbursement of these fees.
We do not expect that we will continue to reimburse The Heritage Group for these types of fees.
Note Payable
On December 30, 2015, we entered into an agreement with The Heritage Group in which The Heritage Group made a $27.0
million uncommitted prepayment for the purchase of certain finished products and entered into a $48.0 million unsecured note
payable with us as the borrower. Imputed interest on the prepayment totaled $1.5 million. The note bears interest at 6%, with
interest payments due on March 31, 2016, June 30, 2016, and July 31, 2016. Principal payments of $15.0 million are due on May
31, 2016, and June 30, 2016, and the remaining principal amount due before July 31, 2016. The proceeds were used for general
partnership purposes.
Procedures for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
Effective February 9, 2007, to further formalize the process by which related person transactions are analyzed and approved
or disapproved, the board of directors of our general partner has adopted the Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Related
Person Transactions Policy (the “Policy”) to be followed in connection with all related person transactions (as defined by the
Policy) involving the Company 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 Company’s last fiscal
year (or any currently proposed transaction) in which: (i) the Company 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 partner’s 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 Company’s business;
(b) not one in which the CEO or any of his immediate family members has a direct or indirect material interest; and
(c) on terms no less favorable to the Company than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties
or fair to the Company, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved (including other
transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to the Company).
The CEO does not have the authority to approve the issuances of equity or grants of awards under the Company’s 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, Indiana, 46214.
Please see Item 10 “Directors, Executive Officers of Our General Partner and Corporate Governance” for a discussion of
director independence matters.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services
The following table details the aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by our independent auditor during
2015 and 2014 (in millions):
Audit fees
Audit-related fees
Tax fees
Total
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
6.6
0.2
0.1
6.9
$
$
5.8
0.2
0.1
6.1
$
$
“Audit fees” above include those related to our annual audit and quarterly review procedures.
187
“Audit-related fees” primarily relate to various securities offerings in 2015. In 2014, “audit-related fees” primarily relate to
procedures related to due diligence related to acquisitions, accounting consultations and audits in connection with acquisitions
and attest services related to financial reporting that are not required for the audit.
“Tax fees” are related to due diligence and domestic compliance matters.
Pre-Approval Policy
The audit committee of our general partner’s board of directors has adopted an audit committee charter, which is available
on our website at http://www.calumetspecialty.com. The charter requires the audit committee to pre-approve all audit and non-
audit services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. The audit committee does not delegate its pre-
approval responsibilities to management or to an individual member of the audit committee. Services for the audit, tax and all
other fee categories above were pre-approved by the audit committee.
188
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits
(a)(1) Consolidated Financial Statements
The consolidated financial statements of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. are included in Part II, Item 8 “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.”
In accordance with Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X, we are required to include in this Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2015, consolidated financial statements of Dakota Prairie Refining, Inc., which are incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 99.1. In accordance with Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X, only the financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2015 are required to be audited. The Rule 3-09 financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31,
2014 and December 31, 2013 are unaudited.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, or the required information is shown in the consolidated financial
statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) Exhibits
The following documents are filed as exhibits to this Annual Report:
Exhibit
Number
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
Description
— Unit Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 5, 2012, by and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, Royal Purple, Inc. and the shareholders of Royal Purple, Inc. named therein (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on June
8, 2012 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 14, 2012, among Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
and Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on August 20, 2012 (File No.
000-51734)).
— Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 25, 2014, by and among ADF Holdings, Inc., Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, the sellers listed therein, GarMark Advisors II L.L.C., as the sellers’
representative, and Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., as guarantor (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 26, 2014
(File No. 000-51734)).
— Certificate of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission on
October 7, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
— Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— 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 Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amendment No. 2 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April 18, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Certificate of Formation of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to the Registrant’s
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission on October 7, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
— Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Specimen Unit Certificate representing common units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 to the
Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on November 4, 2010
(File No. 000-51734).
— Indenture, dated November 26, 2013, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance
Corp., certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on November 26, 2013 (File No. 000-51734)).
189
Exhibit
Number
4.3
4.4
4.5
10.1
10.2*
10.3*
Description
— Indenture, dated March 31, 2014, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance Corp.,
certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on March 31, 2014 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Indenture, dated March 27, 2015, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance Corp.,
certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on March 30, 2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 27, 2015, by and among the Issuers, the Guarantors and the
Initial Purchasers, relating to the offering of the 2023 Notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the
Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 30, 2015 (File No.
000-51734)).
— Amended Crude Oil Sale Contract, effective April 1, 2008, between Plains Marketing, L.P. and Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 20, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, dated December 18,
2008 and effective January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on December 22, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Form of Phantom Unit Grant Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registrant’s
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January 28, 2009 (File No. 000-51734)).
10.4* ** — F. William Grube Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated and effective December 31, 2015.
— Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
10.5
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
10.6*
— Form of Unit Option Grant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Registration
Statement on Form S-1/A filed with the Commission on November 16, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
10.7* ** — Jennifer G. Straumins Severance and Consulting Agreement and General Release, dated May 18, 2015 and
effective as of March 31, 2015.
10.8*
— R. Patrick Murray, II Employment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on May 9, 2014 (File No. 000-51734)).
10.9* ** — Timothy R. Barnhart Severance and Consulting Agreement and General Release, dated March 13, 2015
and effective March 13, 2015.
10.10
10.11**
10.12
10.13
10.14
— Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of July 14, 2014, by and among Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers, certain of its subsidiaries as Guarantors,
the Lenders, Bank of America, N.A., as Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Capital Finance,
LLC, as Co-Syndication Agents, U.S. Bank National Association and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as Co-Documentation Agents and Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Wells
Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book Runners (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on July 17, 2014
(File No. 000-51734)).
— First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of December 4, 2015, by
and among Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers, certain
of its subsidiaries as Guarantors, the Lenders, Bank of America, N.A., as Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Co-Syndication Agents, U.S. Bank National Association
and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Co-Documentation Agents and Bank of America, N.A.,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book
Runners.
— Collateral Trust Agreement, as amended, dated as of April 21, 2011, among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, the guarantors party thereto, the secured hedge counterparties thereto and Bank of America,
N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed
with the Commission on August 8, 2011 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amendment No. 2 to Collateral Trust Agreement, effective as of September 30, 2011, by and among Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, the guarantors party thereto, the secured hedge counterparties thereto
and Bank of America, N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 6, 2011 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amended and Restated Crude Oil Purchase Agreement, dated April 1, 2012 by and between BP Products
North America Inc. and Calumet Superior, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on August 9, 2012 (File No. 000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.
190
Exhibit
Number
10.15
10.16
10.17
12.1**
21.1**
23.1**
23.2**
31.1**
31.2**
32.1***
99.1**
Description
— William H. Hatch Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 16, 2015
(File No. 000-51734)).
— Timothy Go Employment, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 16,
2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, effective as of December 10, 2015 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
December 11, 2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Statement regarding computation of ratios.
— List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
— Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, independent registered public accounting firm.
— Consent of Eide Bailly LLP, independent registered public accounting firm.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of Timothy Go.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of R. Patrick Murray, II.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 906 certification of Timothy Go and R. Patrick Murray, II.
— Financial statements of Dakota Prairie Refining, Inc.
100.INS** — XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CAL** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.DEF** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.
101.LAB** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
101.PRE** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
*
**
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan arrangements.
Filed herewith.
***
Furnished herewith.
191
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
SIGNATURES
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
PARTNERS, L.P.
By:
CALUMET GP, LLC
its general partner
By:
/s/ Timothy Go
Timothy Go
Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 29, 2016
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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
/s/ Timothy Go
Timothy Go
Title
Date
Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman
of the Board of Calumet GP, LLC (Principal
Executive Officer)
Date: February 29, 2016
/s/ R. Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC
(Principal Accounting and Financial
Officer)
Date: February 29, 2016
/s/ Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Director and Chairman of the Board of
Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
/s/ James S. Carter
James S. Carter
/s/ Robert E. Funk
Robert E. Funk
/s/ George C. Morris III
George C. Morris III
/s/ Daniel J. Sajkowski
Daniel J. Sajkowski
/s/ Amy M. Schumacher
Amy M. Schumacher
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
Date: February 29, 2016
192
Exhibit
Number
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
10.1
10.2*
10.3*
Index to Exhibits
Description
— Unit Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 5, 2012, by and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, Royal Purple, Inc. and the shareholders of Royal Purple, Inc. named therein (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on June
8, 2012 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 14, 2012, among Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
and Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K
(File No.
000-51734)).
Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 25, 2014, by and among ADF Holdings, Inc., Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, the sellers listed therein, GarMark Advisors II L.L.C., as the sellers’
representative, and Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., as guarantor (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 26, 2014
(File No. 000-51734)).
the Commission on August 20, 2012
filed with
— Certificate of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission on
October 7, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
— Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— 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 Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amendment No. 2 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April 18, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Certificate of Formation of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to the Registrant’s
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission on October 7, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
— Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Specimen Unit Certificate representing common units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 to the
Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on November 4, 2010
(File No. 000-51734).
— Indenture, dated November 26, 2013, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance
Corp., certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on November 26, 2013 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Indenture, dated March 31, 2014, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance Corp.,
certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on March 31, 2014 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Indenture, dated March 27, 2015, by and among Calumet Specialty Products, L.P., Calumet Finance Corp.,
certain subsidiary guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on March 30, 2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 27, 2015, by and among the Issuers, the Guarantors and the
Initial Purchasers, relating to the offering of the 2023 Notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to
the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 30, 2015 (File No.
000-51734)).
— Amended Crude Oil Sale Contract, effective April 1, 2008, between Plains Marketing, L.P. and Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 20, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, dated December 18,
2008 and effective January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on December 22, 2008 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Form of Phantom Unit Grant Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registrant’s
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January 28, 2009 (File No. 000-51734)).
193
Exhibit
Number
10.4* ** — F. William Grube Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated and effective December 31, 2015.
— Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on
Description
10.5
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
10.6*
— Form of Unit Option Grant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Registration
Statement on Form S-1/A filed with the Commission on November 16, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
10.7* ** — Jennifer G. Straumins Severance and Consulting Agreement and General Release, dated May 18, 2015 and
effective as of March 31, 2015.
10.8*
— R. Patrick Murray, II Employment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on May 9, 2014 (File No. 000-51734)).
10.9* ** — Timothy R. Barnhart Severance and Consulting Agreement and General Release, dated March 13, 2015
10.10
10.11**
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
12.1**
21.1**
23.1**
23.2**
31.1**
31.2**
32.1***
99.1**
and effective March 13, 2015.
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of July 14, 2014, by and among Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers, certain of its subsidiaries as
Guarantors, the Lenders, Bank of America, N.A., as Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo
Capital Finance, LLC, as Co-Syndication Agents, U.S. Bank National Association and Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as Co-Documentation Agents and Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book Runners (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
July 17, 2014 (File No. 000-51734)).
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of December 4, 2015, by
and among Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries as Borrowers, certain
of its subsidiaries as Guarantors, the Lenders, Bank of America, N.A., as Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Co-Syndication Agents, U.S. Bank National Association
and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Co-Documentation Agents and Bank of America, N.A.,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book
Runners.
— Collateral Trust Agreement, as amended, dated as of April 21, 2011, among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, the guarantors party thereto, the secured hedge counterparties thereto and Bank of America,
N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed
with the Commission on August 8, 2011 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amendment No. 2 to Collateral Trust Agreement, effective as of September 30, 2011, by and among Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, the guarantors party thereto, the secured hedge counterparties thereto
and Bank of America, N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 6, 2011 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amended and Restated Crude Oil Purchase Agreement, dated April 1, 2012 by and between BP Products
North America Inc. and Calumet Superior, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on August 9, 2012 (File No. 000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.
— William H. Hatch Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 16, 2015
(File No. 000-51734)).
— Timothy Go Employment, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 16,
2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, effective as of December 10, 2015 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
December 11, 2015 (File No. 000-51734)).
— Statement regarding computation of ratios.
— List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
— Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, independent registered public accounting firm.
— Consent of Eide Bailly LLP, independent registered public accounting firm.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of Timothy Go.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of R. Patrick Murray, II.
— Sarbanes-Oxley Section 906 certification of Timothy Go and R. Patrick Murray, II.
— Financial statements of Dakota Prairie Refining, Inc.
100.INS** — XBRL Instance Document.
194
Exhibit
Number
Description
101.SCH** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CAL** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.DEF** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.
101.LAB** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
101.PRE** — XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
*
**
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan arrangements.
Filed herewith.
***
Furnished herewith.
195
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Exhibit 23.1
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:
(1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138767) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. pertaining to the
Calumet GP, LLC Long-Term Incentive Plan of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-170390) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(3) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-178574) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(4) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-178589) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(5) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-185262) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-186961) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. pertaining to the
Calumet GP, LLC Long-Term Incentive Plan of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(7) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-188653) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(8) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-188654) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(9) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-192608) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
(10) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-202968) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(11) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-208510) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.; and
(12) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-208511) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. pertaining to the
Calumet GP, LLC Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.;
of our reports dated February 29, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. for the year
ended December 31, 2015.
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2016
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
We hereby consent to the use of our report dated February 24, 2016, related to the financial statements of Dakota Prairie Refining,
LLC as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Exhibit 23.2
/s/ Eide Bailly LLP
Fargo, North Dakota
February 29, 2016
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) AND RULE 15D-14(A)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
I, Timothy Go, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the “registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;
b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 29, 2016
/s/ Timothy Go
Timothy Go
Chief Executive Officer of Calumet GP, LLC, general partner of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) AND RULE 15D-14(A)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
I, R. Patrick Murray, II, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the “registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;
b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 29, 2016
/s/ R. Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC, general partner of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350
Exhibit 32.1
In connection with the Annual Report of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), each of the undersigned officers of Calumet GP, LLC, the general partner of the Company, does hereby
certify that:
(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
February 29, 2016
February 29, 2016
/s/ Timothy Go
Timothy Go
Chief Executive Officer of Calumet GP, LLC
/s/ R. Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
Calumet GP, LLC
ABOUT US Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (NASDAQ: CLMT) is a fixed-distribution master limited partnership and a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North America. Calumet processes crude oil and other feedstocks into customized lubricating oils, solvents and waxes used in consumer, industrial and automotive products; produces fuel products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel; and provides oilfield services and products to customers throughout the United States. Calumet is based in Indianapolis and has a series of manufacturing facilities across the U.S.1 Financial Highlights2 Geographic Footprint4 Timeline of Our 25-Year Legacy5 Letter from Executive Vice Chairman, F. William Grube8 Our Vision, Mission, Values9 Letter from CEO, Timothy Go12 Our Long-Term Strategy14 Lower Capital Spending, Disciplined Cash Management15 Benefiting from Access to Heavy Canadian Crude Oil16 Board of Directors17 10-K Investor Information Table of ContentsRecord Performance in 2015INSIDE BACK COVERTotal Sales VolumeThousands of barrels per day11 12 13 14 1566.197.8116.5122.9126.2Total Facility ProductionThousands of barrels per day11 12 13 14 1570.996.2106.6114.1122.8Distribution Coverage Ratio11 12 13 14 151.4x1.9x0.7x0.7x0.1xAdjusted EBITDADollars in millions11 12 13 14 15$211.0$404.6$241.5$305.9$257.7INVESTORINFORMATIONCommon Unit Listing:NASDAQ Global Select MarketSymbol: CLMTIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm:Ernst & Young LLPIndianapolis, IndianaStock Transfer Agent:ComputershareInvestor Relations:Unitholders, securities analysts or portfolio managers seeking information are welcome to contact: Noel R. Ryan IIIVice President, Investor Relations & External CommunicationsCalumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. 317.328.5660 Noel.Ryan@clmt.comFor more information, please visit our website at: www.calumetspecialty.comSafe Harbor StatementCertain statements and information in this annual report may constitute "forward-looking statements." The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "plan," "intend," "foresee," "should," "would," "could" or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, which are generally not historical in nature. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effect on us. While management believes that these forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, there can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we anticipate. All comments concerning our expectations for future sales and operating results are based on our forecasts for our existing operations and do not include the potential impact of any future acquisitions. Our forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include: 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 impact of fluctuations and rapid increases or decreases in crude oil and crack spread prices, including the resulting impact on our liquidity; the results of our hedging and other risk management activities; our ability to comply with financial covenants contained in our debt instruments; the availability of, and our ability to consummate, acquisition or combination opportunities and the impact of any completed acquisitions; labor relations; our access to capital to fund expansions, acquisitions and our working capital needs and our ability to obtain debt or equity financing on satisfactory terms; successful integration and future performance of acquired assets, businesses or third-party product supply and processing relationships; our ability 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; environmental liabilities or events that are not covered by an indemnity, insurance or existing reserves; maintenance of our credit ratings and ability to receive open credit lines from our suppliers; demand for various grades of crude oil and resulting changes in pricing conditions; fluctuations in refinery capacity; our ability to access sufficient crude oil supply through long-term or month-to-month evergreen contracts and on the spot market; the effects of competition; continued creditworthiness of, and performance by, counterparties; the impact of current and future laws, rulings and governmental regulations, including guidance related to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; shortages or cost increases of power supplies, natural gas, materials or labor; hurricane or other weather interference with business operations; our ability to access the debt and equity markets; accidents or other unscheduled shutdowns; and general economic, market or business conditions. For additional information regarding known material factors that could cause our actual results to differ from our projected results, please see our filings with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our latest Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements after the date they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.101562_D&E_Cover_acg.indd 4-65/24/16 3:35 PM TMLISTEDCLMTCalumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. ∂ 2780 Waterfront Pkwy. E. Dr., Suite 200 ∂ Indianapolis, IN 46214 ∂ www.calumetspecialty.com© 2016 Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.Calumet ∂ 2015 Annual ReportOUR LEGACY ∂ OUR VISIONOUR LEGACY OUR VISION 2015 ANNUAL REPORTTM102562_D&E_Cover_acg.indd 1-35/20/16 11:34 AM