CVR Energy 10Q 2012 Q3 Quarterly report | CVI Filing

Exhibit 99.1

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The Company’s risk factors previously disclosed in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, have been amended and restated and are included in full in Exhibit 99.1 attached to this report.

Risks Related to the Petroleum Business

The price volatility of crude oil and other feedstocks, refined products and utility services may have a material adverse effect on our earnings, profitability and cash flows.

Our petroleum business’ financial results are primarily affected by the relationship, or margin, between refined product prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. When the margin between refined product prices and crude oil and other feedstock prices tightens, our earnings, profitability and cash flows are negatively affected. Refining margins historically have been volatile and are likely to continue to be volatile, as a result of a variety of factors including fluctuations in prices of crude oil, other feedstocks and refined products. Continued future volatility in refining industry margins may cause a decline in our results of operations, since the margin between refined product prices and crude oil and other feedstock prices may decrease below the amount needed for us to generate net cash flow sufficient for our needs. Although an increase or decrease in the price for crude oil generally results in a similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products, there is normally a time lag in the realization of the similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products. The effect of changes in crude oil prices on our results of operations therefore depends in part on how quickly and how fully refined product prices adjust to reflect these changes. A substantial or prolonged increase in crude oil prices without a corresponding increase in refined product prices, or a substantial or prolonged decrease in refined product prices without a corresponding decrease in crude oil prices, could have a significant negative impact on our earnings, results of operations and cash flows.

Our profitability is also impacted by the ability to purchase crude oil at a discount to benchmark crude oils, such as WTI, as we do not produce any crude oil and must purchase all of the crude oil we refine. Crude oil differentials can fluctuate significantly based upon overall economic and crude oil market conditions. Declines in crude oil differentials can adversely impact refining margins, earnings and cash flows. For example, infrastructure and logistical improvements could result in a reduction of the WTI-Brent differential that has recently provided us with increased profitability. In addition, our purchases of crude oil, although based on WTI prices, have historically been at a discount to WTI because of our proximity to the sources, existing logistics infrastructure and quality differences. Any change in the sources of our crude oil, infrastructure or logistical improvements or quality differences could result in a reduction of our historical discount to WTI and may result in a reduction of our cost advantage.

Refining margins are also impacted by domestic and global refining capacity. Continued downturns in the economy impact the demand for refined fuels and, in turn, generate excess capacity. In addition, the expansion and construction of refineries domestically and globally can increase refined fuel production capacity. Excess capacity can adversely impact refining margins, earnings and cash flows.

During 2011 and the nine months ended September 30, 2012, favorable crack spreads and access to a variety of price advantaged crude oils have resulted in EBITDA and cash flow generation that is higher than usual. We cannot assure you that these favorable conditions will continue and, in fact, crack spreads, refining margins and crude oil prices could decline, possibly materially, at any time. In particular, Enbridge Inc.’s purchase of 50% of the Seaway crude oil pipeline and the recent reversal of the pipeline to make it flow from Cushing to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Seaway capacity expansion project may contribute to the decline of such favorable conditions by providing mid-continent producers with the ability to transport crude oil to Gulf Coast refiners in an economic manner. Since May 19, 2012, when crude oil began flowing through the Seaway Pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, volumes have steadily increased towards the current capacity of 150,000 bpd. Work is underway and on schedule to add incremental pumping capacity that would allow the existing Seaway Pipeline to transport up to 400,000 bpd by the first quarter of 2013. Moreover, the planned construction of a loop (twin) of the Seaway Pipeline, a new pipeline designed to parallel the existing right-of-way from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, is expected to more than double Seaway’s capacity to 850,000 bpd by mid-2014. Any deterioration of the current favorable conditions would have a material adverse effect on our earnings, results of operations and cash flows. Volatile prices for natural gas and

electricity also affect our manufacturing and operating costs. Natural gas and electricity prices have been, and will continue to be, affected by supply and demand for fuel and utility services in both local and regional markets.

If we are required to obtain our crude oil supply without the benefit of a crude oil supply agreement, our exposure to the risks associated with volatile crude oil prices may increase and our liquidity may be reduced.

Since December 31, 2009, we have obtained substantially all of our crude oil supply for the Coffeyville refinery, other than the crude oil we gather, through a Crude Oil Supply Agreement (as amended, the “Supply Agreement”), with Vitol Inc. The Supply Agreement was amended and restated on August 31, 2012 to include the provision of crude oil intermediation services to our Wynnewood refinery. The agreement, whose initial term expires on December 31, 2014, minimizes the amount of in-transit inventory and mitigates crude oil pricing risks by ensuring pricing takes place extremely close to the time when the crude oil is refined and the yielded products are sold. If we were required to obtain our crude oil supply without the benefit of a supply intermediation agreement, our exposure to crude oil pricing risks may increase, despite any hedging activity in which we may engage, and our liquidity would be negatively impacted due to increased inventory and the negative impact of market volatility.

Disruption of our ability to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil could reduce our liquidity and increase our costs.

For the Coffeyville refinery, in addition to the crude oil we gather locally in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Nebraska, we purchased an additional 80,000 to 90,000 bpd of crude oil to be refined into liquid fuels in 2011. For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we purchased approximately an additional 71,000 bpd of crude oil to be refined into liquid fuels in addition to the approximately 41,000 bpd of gathered crude oil. Although the Wynnewood refinery has historically acquired most of its crude oil from Texas and Oklahoma, it also purchases crude oil from other regions. Coffeyville obtains a portion of its non-gathered crude oil, approximately 19% in 2011, from foreign sources and Wynnewood obtained a small amount from foreign sources as well. The majority of these foreign sourced crude oil barrels were derived from Canada. The actual amount of foreign crude oil we purchase is dependent on market conditions and will vary from year to year. We are subject to the political, geographic, and economic risks attendant to doing business with foreign suppliers. Disruption of production in any of these regions for any reason could have a material impact on other regions and our business.

In the event that one or more of our traditional suppliers becomes unavailable to us, we may be unable to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil, or we may only be able to obtain our crude oil supply at unfavorable prices. As a result, we may experience a reduction in our liquidity and our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

If our access to the pipelines on which we rely for the supply of our feedstock and the distribution of our products is interrupted, our inventory and costs may increase and we may be unable to efficiently distribute our products.

If one of the pipelines on which either of the Coffeyville or Wynnewood refineries relies for supply of crude oil becomes inoperative, we would be required to obtain crude oil through alternative pipelines or from additional tanker trucks, which could increase our costs and result in lower production levels and profitability. Similarly, if a major refined fuels pipeline becomes inoperative, we would be required to keep refined fuels in inventory or supply refined fuels to our customers through an alternative pipeline or by additional tanker trucks, which could increase our costs and result in a decline in profitability.

The geographic concentration of our refineries and related assets creates an exposure to the risks of the local economy and other local adverse conditions. The location of our refineries also creates the risk of increased transportation costs should the supply/demand balance change in our region such that regional supply exceeds regional demand for refined products.

As our refineries are both located in the southern portion of Group 3 of the PADD II region, we primarily market our refined products in a relatively limited geographic area. As a result, we are more susceptible to regional economic conditions than the operations of more geographically diversified competitors, and any unforeseen events or circumstances that affect our operating area could also materially adversely affect our revenues and cash flows.

These factors include, among other things, changes in the economy, weather conditions, demographics and population, increased supply of refined products from competitors and reductions in the supply of crude oil.

Should the supply/demand balance shift in our region as a result of changes in the local economy discussed above, an increase in refining capacity or other reasons, resulting in supply in the region exceeding demand, we may have to deliver refined products to customers outside of the region and thus incur considerably higher transportation costs, resulting in lower refining margins, if any. Changes in market conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If sufficient Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) are unavailable for purchase or if we have to pay a significantly higher price for RINs, or if we are otherwise unable to meet the EPA’s Renewable Fuels Standard mandates, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, has promulgated the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, which requires refiners to blend “renewable fuels,” such as ethanol, with their petroleum fuels or purchase renewable energy credits, known as renewable identification numbers, or RINs, in lieu of blending. Under the RFS, the volume of renewable fuels refineries like us are obligated to blend into their finished petroleum products increases annually over time until 2022. Beginning in 2011, our Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending. The Wynnewood refinery is a small refinery under the RFS and has received a two year extension to comply, which expires on January 1, 2013. We currently purchase RINs for some fuel categories on the open market, as well as waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels from the EPA, in order to comply with the RFS. We estimate that we will spend approximately $21.0 million in 2012 on RINs and waiver credits for Coffeyville. Existing laws or regulations could change, and the minimum volumes of renewable fuels that must be blended with refined petroleum products may increase. In the future, we may be required to purchase additional RINs on the open market and waiver credits from EPA in order to comply with the RFS. We cannot currently predict the future prices of RINs or waiver credits, but the costs to obtain the necessary number of RINs and waiver credits could be material. Additionally, because we do not produce renewable fuels, increasing the volume of renewable fuels that must be blended into our products displaces an increasing volume of our refineries’ product pool, potentially resulting in lower earning and materially adversely affecting our cash flows.

If we are unable to pass the costs of compliance with RFS on to our customers, our profits would be significantly lower. Moreover, if sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase or if we have to pay a significantly higher price for RINs, or if we are otherwise unable to meet the EPA’s RFS mandates, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our petroleum business’ financial results are seasonal and generally lower in the first and fourth quarters of the year.

Demand for gasoline products is generally higher during the summer months than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in highway traffic and road construction work. As a result, our results of operations for the first and fourth calendar quarters are generally lower than for those for the second and third quarters. Further, reduced agricultural work during the winter months somewhat depresses demand for diesel fuel in the winter months. In addition to the overall seasonality of the petroleum business, unseasonably cool weather in the summer months and/or unseasonably warm weather in the winter months in the areas in which we sell our petroleum products could have the effect of reducing demand for gasoline and diesel fuel which could result in lower prices and reduce operating margins.

We face significant competition, both within and outside of our industry. Competitors who produce their own supply of crude oil or other feedstocks, have extensive retail outlets, make alternative fuels or have greater financial resources than we do may have a competitive advantage over us.

The refining industry is highly competitive with respect to both crude oil and other feedstock supply and refined product markets. We may be unable to compete effectively with our competitors within and outside of our industry, which could result in reduced profitability. We compete with numerous other companies for available supplies of crude oil and other feedstocks and for outlets for our refined products. We are not engaged in the petroleum

exploration and production business and therefore we do not produce any of our crude oil feedstocks. We do not have a retail business and therefore are dependent upon others for outlets for our refined products. We do not have any long-term arrangements (those exceeding more than a twelve-month period) for much of our output. Many of our competitors obtain significant portions of their crude oil and other feedstocks from company-owned production and have extensive retail outlets. Competitors that have their own production or extensive retail outlets with brand-name recognition are at times able to offset losses from refining operations with profits from producing or retailing operations, and may be better positioned to withstand periods of depressed refining margins or feedstock shortages.

A number of our competitors also have materially greater financial and other resources than us. These competitors may have a greater ability to bear the economic risks inherent in all aspects of the refining industry. An expansion or upgrade of our competitors’ facilities, price volatility, international political and economic developments and other factors are likely to continue to play an important role in refining industry economics and may add additional competitive pressure on us.

In addition, we compete with other industries that provide alternative means to satisfy the energy and fuel requirements of our industrial, commercial and individual customers. There are presently significant governmental incentives and consumer pressures to increase the use of alternative fuels in the United States. The more successful these alternatives become as a result of governmental incentives or regulations, technological advances, consumer demand, improved pricing or otherwise, the greater the negative impact on pricing and demand for our products and our profitability.

Changes in our credit profile may affect our relationship with our suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to operate our refineries at full capacity.

Changes in our credit profile may affect the way crude oil suppliers view our ability to make payments and may induce them to shorten the payment terms for our purchases or require us to post security prior to payment. Given the large dollar amounts and volume of our crude oil and other feedstock purchases, a burdensome change in payment terms may have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to make payments to our suppliers. This, in turn, could cause us to be unable to operate our refineries at full capacity. A failure to operate our refineries at full capacity could adversely affect our profitability and cash flows.

Our commodity derivative contracts may limit our potential gains, exacerbate potential losses and involve other risks.

We enter into commodity derivatives contracts to mitigate our crack spread risk with respect to a portion of our expected refined products production. The purpose of these hedging arrangements is to secure a minimum fixed cash flow stream on the volume of products hedged during the hedge term. However, our hedging arrangements may fail to fully achieve these objectives for a variety of reasons, including our failure to have adequate hedging contracts, if any, in effect at any particular time and the failure of our hedging arrangements to produce the anticipated results. We may not be able to procure adequate hedging arrangements due to a variety of factors. Moreover, while intended to reduce the adverse effects of fluctuations in crude oil and refined product prices, such transactions may limit our ability to benefit from favorable changes in margins. In addition, our hedging activities may expose us to the risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including instances in which:

· the volumes of our actual use of crude oil or production of the applicable refined products is less than the volumes subject to the hedging arrangement;

· the counterparties to our futures contracts fail to perform under the contracts; or

· a sudden, unexpected event materially impacts the commodity or crack spread subject to the hedging arrangement.

As a result, the effectiveness of our risk mitigation strategy could have a material adverse impact on our financial results and cash flows.

The adoption of derivatives legislation by the U.S. Congress could have an adverse effect on our ability to hedge risks associated with our petroleum business.

The U.S. Congress has adopted the Dodd-Frank Act, comprehensive financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities that participate in that market, and requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) to institute broad new position limits for futures and options traded on regulated exchanges. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC and the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. The rulemaking process is still ongoing, and we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the rulemakings. New regulations in this area may result in increased costs and cash collateral requirements for derivative instruments we may use to hedge and otherwise manage our financial risks related to volatility in oil and gas commodity prices.

Existing design, operational, and maintenance issues associated with our newly acquired Wynnewood refinery or other future acquisitions may not be identified immediately and may require additional unanticipated capital expenditures that could impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our due diligence associated with asset acquisitions may result in assuming liabilities associated with unknown conditions or deficiencies, as well as known but undisclosed conditions and deficiencies that we may have limited, if any, recourse for cost recovery. In the case of Wynnewood, we have specific language in the Purchase and Sale Agreement that provides us with a limited amount of cost recovery for known, but undisclosed, operational and environmental conditions that had not been specifically scheduled with a very limited time for notice of the condition. Many acquisition agreements have similar terms, conditions and timing of cost recovery that may not become evident until sometime after cost recovery provisions, if any, have expired.

We must make substantial capital expenditures on our refineries and other facilities to maintain their reliability and efficiency. If we are unable to complete capital projects at their expected costs and/or in a timely manner, or if the market conditions assumed in our project economics deteriorate, our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely affected.

Delays or cost increases related to the engineering, procurement and construction of new facilities, or improvements and repairs to our existing facilities and equipment, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Such delays or cost increases may arise as a result of unpredictable factors in the marketplace, many of which are beyond our control, including:

· denial or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals and/or permits;

· unplanned increases in the cost of equipment, materials or labor;

· disruptions in transportation of equipment and materials;

· severe adverse weather conditions, natural disasters or other events (such as equipment malfunctions, explosions, fires or spills) affecting our facilities, or those of our vendors and suppliers;

· shortages of sufficiently skilled labor, or labor disagreements resulting in unplanned work stoppages;

· market-related increases in a project’s debt or equity financing costs; and/or

· nonperformance or force majeure by, or disputes with, our vendors, suppliers, contractors or sub-contractors.

Our refineries have been in operation for many years. Equipment, even if properly maintained, may require significant capital expenditures and expenses to keep it operating at optimum efficiency. For example, we have spent approximately $89 million on the most recently completed turnaround at the Coffeyville refinery and we estimate that we will spend approximately $100.0 million associated with the turnaround for the Wynnewood refinery which began in the fourth quarter of 2012. These costs do not result in increases in unit capacities, but rather are limited to trying to maintain safe, reliable operations.

Any one or more of these occurrences noted above could have a significant impact on our business. If we were unable to make up the delays or to recover the related costs, or if market conditions change, it could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Our plans to expand the gathering assets making up part of our supporting logistics businesses, which assist us in reducing our costs and increasing our processing margins, may expose us to significant additional risks, compliance costs and liabilities.

We plan to continue to make investments to enhance the operating flexibility of our refineries and to improve our crude oil sourcing advantage through additional investments in our gathering and logistics operations. If we are able to successfully increase the effectiveness of our supporting logistics businesses, including our crude oil gathering operations, we believe we will be able to enhance our crude oil sourcing flexibility and reduce related crude oil purchasing and delivery costs. However, the acquisition of infrastructure assets to expand our gathering operations may expose us to risks in the future that are different than or incremental to the risks we face with respect to our refineries and existing gathering and logistics operations. The storage and transportation of liquid hydrocarbons, including crude oil and refined products, are subject to stringent federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, operational safety and related matters. Compliance with these laws and regulations could adversely affect our operating results, financial condition and cash flows. Moreover, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory and remedial liabilities, the issuance of injunctions that may restrict or prohibit our operations, or claims of damages to property or persons resulting from our operations.

Any businesses or assets that we may acquire in connection with an expansion of our crude oil gathering operations could expose us to the risk of releasing hazardous materials into the environment. These releases would expose us to potentially substantial expenses, including cleanup and remediation costs, fines and penalties, and third party claims for personal injury or property damage related to past or future releases. Accordingly, if we do acquire any such businesses or assets, we could also incur additional expenses not covered by insurance which could be material.

More stringent trucking regulations may increase our costs and negatively impact our results of operations.

In connection with the trucking operations conducted by our crude gathering division, we operate as a motor carrier and therefore are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “U.S. DOT”) and various state agencies. These regulatory authorities exercise broad powers, governing activities such as the authorization to engage in motor carrier operations and regulatory safety, and hazardous materials labeling, placarding and marking. There are additional regulations specifically relating to the trucking industry, including testing and specification of equipment and product handling requirements. The trucking industry is subject to possible regulatory and legislative changes that may affect the economics of the industry by requiring changes in operating practices or by changing the demand for common or contract carrier services or the cost of providing truckload services. Some of these possible changes include increasingly stringent environmental regulations, changes in the hours of service regulations that govern the amount of time a driver may drive in any specific period, onboard black box recorder devices or limits on vehicle weight and size.

To a large degree, intrastate motor carrier operations are subject to state safety regulations that mirror federal regulations. Such matters as weight and dimension of equipment are also subject to federal and state regulations. Furthermore, from time to time, various legislative proposals are introduced, such as proposals to increase federal, state or local taxes, including taxes on motor fuels, which may increase our costs or adversely impact the recruitment of drivers. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any increase in such taxes will be enacted or the extent to which they will apply to us and our operations.

Risks Related to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business

The nitrogen fertilizer business is, and nitrogen fertilizer prices are, cyclical and highly volatile, and the nitrogen fertilizer business has experienced substantial downturns in the past. Cycles in demand and pricing could potentially expose the nitrogen fertilizer business to significant fluctuations in its operating and financial results and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The nitrogen fertilizer business is exposed to fluctuations in nitrogen fertilizer demand in the agricultural industry. These fluctuations historically have had and could in the future have significant effects on prices across all nitrogen fertilizer products and, in turn, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

The costs associated with operating the nitrogen fertilizer plant are largely fixed. If nitrogen fertilizer prices fall below a certain level, the nitrogen fertilizer business may not generate sufficient revenue to operate profitably or cover its costs.

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

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

Most nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers rely on natural gas as their primary feedstock, and the cost of natural gas is a large component of the total production cost for natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. The dramatic increase in nitrogen fertilizer prices in recent years has not been the direct result of an increase in natural gas prices, but rather the result of increased demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers due to historically low stocks of global grains and a surge in the prices of corn and wheat, the primary crops in the nitrogen fertilizer business’ region. This increase in demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers has created an environment in which nitrogen fertilizer prices have disconnected from their traditional correlation with natural gas prices. A decrease in natural gas prices would benefit the nitrogen fertilizer business’ competitors and could disproportionately impact our operations by making the nitrogen fertilizer business less competitive with natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. A decline in natural gas prices could impair the nitrogen fertilizer business’ ability to compete with other nitrogen fertilizer producers who utilize natural gas as their primary feedstock, and therefore have a material adverse impact on the cash flows of the nitrogen fertilizer business. In addition, if natural gas prices in the United States were to decline to a level that prompts those U.S. producers who have permanently or temporarily closed production facilities to resume fertilizer production, this would likely contribute to a global supply/demand imbalance that could negatively affect nitrogen fertilizer prices and therefore have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nitrogen fertilizer products are global commodities, and the nitrogen fertilizer business faces intense competition from other nitrogen fertilizer producers.

The nitrogen fertilizer business is subject to intense price competition from both U.S. and foreign sources, including competitors operating in the Persian Gulf, the Asia-Pacific region, the Caribbean, Russia and the Ukraine. Fertilizers are global commodities, with little or no product differentiation, and customers make their purchasing decisions principally on the basis of delivered price and availability of the product. Furthermore, in recent years the

price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States has been substantially driven by pricing in the global fertilizer market. The nitrogen fertilizer business competes with a number of U.S. producers and producers in other countries, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some competitors have greater total resources and are less dependent on earnings from fertilizer sales which makes them less vulnerable to industry downturns and better positioned to pursue new expansion and development opportunities. The nitrogen fertilizer business’ competitive position could suffer to the extent it is not able to expand its resources either through investments in new or existing operations or through acquisitions, joint ventures or partnerships, or otherwise compete successfully in the global nitrogen fertilizer market. An inability to compete successfully could result in a loss of customers, which could adversely affect the sales, profitability and the cash flows of the nitrogen fertilizer business and therefore have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

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

The degree of seasonality of the nitrogen fertilizer business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors. As a consequence of such seasonality, it is expected that the distributions we receive from the nitrogen fertilizer business will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.

Adverse weather conditions during peak fertilizer application periods may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, because the agricultural customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business are geographically concentrated.

The nitrogen fertilizer business’ sales to agricultural customers are concentrated in the Great Plains and Midwest states and are seasonal in nature. The nitrogen fertilizer business’ quarterly results may vary significantly from one year to the next due largely to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchase patterns. For example, the nitrogen fertilizer business generates greater net sales and operating income in the first half of the year, which is referred to herein as the planting season, compared to the second half of the year. Accordingly, an adverse weather pattern affecting agriculture in these regions or during the planting season could have a negative effect on fertilizer demand, which could, in turn, result in a material decline in the nitrogen fertilizer business’ net sales and margins and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The nitrogen fertilizer business’ quarterly results may vary significantly from one year to the next due largely to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchase patterns. As a result, it is expected that the nitrogen fertilizer business’ distributions to holders of its common units (including us) will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.

The nitrogen fertilizer business’ operations are dependent on third party suppliers, including Linde LLC (“Linde”), which owns an air separation plant that provides oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air to its gasifiers, and the City of Coffeyville, which supplies the nitrogen fertilizer business with electricity. A deterioration in the financial condition of a third party supplier, a mechanical problem with the air separation plant, or the inability of a third party supplier to perform in accordance with its contractual obligations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The operations of the nitrogen fertilizer business depend in large part on the performance of third party suppliers, including Linde for the supply of oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air, and the City of Coffeyville for the supply of electricity. With respect to Linde, operations could be adversely affected if there were a deterioration in Linde’s financial condition such that the operation of the air separation plant located adjacent to the nitrogen fertilizer plant was disrupted. Additionally, this air separation plant in the past has experienced numerous short-term interruptions, causing interruptions in gasifier operations. With respect to electricity, in 2010, the nitrogen fertilizer business settled litigation with the City of Coffeyville regarding the price they sought to charge the nitrogen fertilizer business for electricity and entered into an amended and restated electric services agreement which gives the nitrogen fertilizer business an option to extend the term of such agreement through June 30, 2024. Should Linde, the City of Coffeyville or any of its other third party suppliers fail to perform in accordance with existing contractual arrangements, operations could be forced to halt. Alternative sources of supply could be difficult to obtain. Any shutdown of operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant, even for a limited period, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The nitrogen fertilizer business’ results of operations, financial condition and cash flows may be adversely affected by the supply and price levels of pet coke.

The profitability of the nitrogen fertilizer business is directly affected by the price and availability of pet coke obtained from our Coffeyville refinery pursuant to a long-term agreement and pet coke purchased from third parties, both of which vary based on market prices. Pet coke is a key raw material used by the nitrogen fertilizer business in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer products. If pet coke costs increase, the nitrogen fertilizer business may not be able to increase its prices to recover these increased costs, because market prices for nitrogen fertilizer products are not correlated with pet coke prices.

The nitrogen fertilizer business may not be able to maintain an adequate supply of pet coke. In addition, it could experience production delays or cost increases if alternative sources of supply prove to be more expensive or difficult to obtain. The nitrogen fertilizer business currently purchases 100% of the pet coke the Coffeyville refinery produces. Accordingly, if the nitrogen fertilizer business increases production, it will be more dependent on pet coke purchases from third party suppliers at open market prices. The nitrogen fertilizer business entered into a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation which became effective on March 1, 2012. The initial term ends in 2013 and the agreement is subject to renewal. There is no assurance that the nitrogen fertilizer business would be able to purchase pet coke on comparable terms from third parties or at all.

The nitrogen fertilizer business relies on third party providers of transportation services and equipment, which subjects it to risks and uncertainties beyond its control that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The nitrogen fertilizer business relies on railroad and trucking companies to ship finished products to its customers. The nitrogen fertilizer business also leases railcars from railcar owners in order to ship its finished products. These transportation operations, equipment and services are subject to various hazards, including extreme weather conditions, work stoppages, delays, spills, derailments and other accidents and other operating hazards.

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

Any delay in the nitrogen fertilizer business’ ability to ship its finished products as a result of these transportation companies’ failure to operate properly, the implementation of new and more stringent regulatory requirements

affecting transportation operations or equipment, or significant increases in the cost of these services or equipment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

· weather patterns and field conditions (particularly during periods of traditionally high nitrogen fertilizer consumption);

· quantities of nitrogen fertilizers imported to and exported from North America;

· current and projected grain inventories and prices, which are heavily influenced by U.S. exports and world-wide grain markets; and

· U.S. governmental policies, including farm and biofuel policies, which may directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the level of grain inventories, the mix of crops planted or crop prices.

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

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

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

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

business or us being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting claims for large amounts of damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

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

If licensed technology were no longer available, the nitrogen fertilizer business may be adversely affected.

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

The nitrogen fertilizer business may face third party claims of intellectual property infringement, which if successful could result in significant costs.

Although there are currently no pending claims relating to the infringement of any third party intellectual property rights, in the future the nitrogen fertilizer business may face claims of infringement that could interfere with its ability to use technology that is material to its business operations. Any litigation of this type, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in substantial costs and diversions of resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In the event a claim of infringement against the nitrogen fertilizer business is successful, it may be required to pay royalties or license fees for past or continued use of the infringing technology, or it may be prohibited from using the infringing technology altogether. If it is prohibited from using any technology as a result of such a claim, it may not be able to obtain licenses to alternative technology adequate to substitute for the technology it can no longer use, or licenses for such alternative technology may only be available on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable. In addition, any substitution of new technology for currently licensed technology may require the nitrogen fertilizer business to make substantial changes to its manufacturing processes or equipment or to its products, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

There can be no assurance that the transportation costs of the nitrogen fertilizer business’ competitors will not decline.

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

Risks Related to Our Entire Business

Instability and volatility in the capital, credit and commodity markets in the global economy could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted by difficult conditions and volatility in the capital, credit and commodities markets and in the global economy. For example:

· Although we believe we have sufficient liquidity under our $400.0 million ABL credit facility to operate both the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries, and that the nitrogen fertilizer business has sufficient liquidity under its revolving credit facility to run the nitrogen fertilizer businesses, under extreme market conditions there can be no assurance that such funds would be available or sufficient, and in such a case, we may not be able to successfully obtain additional financing on favorable terms, or at all.

· Market volatility could exert downward pressure on our stock price, which may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital and thereby limit our ability to grow. Similarly, market volatility could exert downward pressure on the price of the Partnership’s common units, which may make it more difficult for the Partnership to raise additional capital and thereby limit its ability to grow.

· Our ABL credit facility, the indentures governing our notes and the nitrogen fertilizer business’ revolving credit facility contain various covenants that must be complied with, and if we or the Partnership are not in compliance, there can be no assurance that we or the Partnership would be able to successfully amend the agreement in the future. Further, any such amendment could be very expensive.

· Market conditions could result in our significant customers experiencing financial difficulties. We are exposed to the credit risk of our customers, and their failure to meet their financial obligations when due because of bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons could result in decreased sales and earnings for us.

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

Our operations are subject to significant operating hazards and interruptions. If any of our facilities, including our Coffeyville or Wynnewood refineries or the nitrogen fertilizer plant, experiences a major accident or fire, is damaged by severe weather, flooding or other natural disaster, or is otherwise forced to significantly curtail its operations or shut down, we could incur significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Conducting the majority of our refining operations and all of our fertilizer manufacturing at a single location compounds such risks.

Operations at either or both of our refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant could be curtailed or partially or completely shut down, temporarily or permanently, as the result of a number of circumstances, most of which are not within our control, such as:

· unplanned maintenance or catastrophic events such as a major accident or fire, damage by severe weather, flooding or other natural disaster;

· labor difficulties that result in a work stoppage or slowdown;

· environmental proceedings or other litigation that compel the cessation of all or a portion of the operations;

· state and federal agencies changing interpretations and enforcement of historical environmental rules and regulations; and

· increasingly stringent environmental regulations.

The magnitude of the effect on us of any shutdown will depend on the length of the shutdown and the extent of the plant operations affected by the shutdown. Our refineries require a planned maintenance turnaround every four to five years for each unit, and the nitrogen fertilizer plant requires a planned maintenance turnaround every two years. A major accident, fire, flood, or other event could damage our facilities or the environment and the surrounding community or result in injuries or loss of life. For example, the flood that occurred during the weekend of June 30, 2007 shut down our Coffeyville refinery for seven weeks, shut down the nitrogen fertilizer facility for approximately two weeks and required significant expenditures to repair damaged equipment. In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business’ UAN plant was out of service for approximately six weeks after the rupture of a high pressure vessel in September 2010 which required significant expenditures to repair. Our Coffeyville refinery experienced an equipment malfunction and small fire in connection with its fluid catalytic cracking unit on December 28, 2010, which led to reduced crude oil throughput for approximately one month and required significant expenditures to repair. Similarly, the Wynnewood refinery experienced a small explosion and fire in its hydrocracker process unit due to metal failure in December 2010. In addition, on September 28, 2012, a boiler explosion occurred at the Wynnewood refinery, fatally injuring two employees. We have launched an internal investigation into the cause of the boiler explosion, which occurred as operators were restarting a boiler that had been temporarily shut down as part of the refinery’s turnaround process. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler. This matter is currently under investigation by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which could impose penalties if it determines that a violation of Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) standards has occurred. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance could reduce our net income and cash flows during the period of time that any of our units is not operating. Any unscheduled future downtime could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

If we experience significant property damage, business interruption, environmental claims or other liabilities, our business could be materially adversely affected to the extent the damages or claims exceed the amount of valid and collectible insurance available to us. Our property and business interruption insurance policies (that cover the Coffeyville refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant) have a $1.0 billion limit, with a $2.5 million deductible for physical damage and a 45- to 60-day waiting period (depending on the insurance carrier) before losses resulting from business interruptions are recoverable. We are fully exposed to all losses in excess of the applicable limits and sub-limits and for losses due to business interruptions of fewer than 45 to 60 days. Our Wynnewood refinery, effective November 1, 2012, is insured with a $1.0 billion limit, $10 million property damage deductible and a 75 days waiting period deductible for business interruption. The property and business interruption insurance policies insuring Coffeyville and Wynnewood assets contain various sub-limits, exclusions, and conditions that could have a material adverse impact on the insurance indemnification of any particular catastrophic loss occurrence. For example, the Company’s current property policy contains varying specific sub-limits of $128.5 million (for Coffeyville assets) and $115 million (for Wynnewood assets) for damage caused by flooding. Insurance policy language and terms maintained by our Company are generally consistent with standards for the energy and fertilizer manufacturing industries.

The insurance market for energy and fertilizer manufacturing industries is highly specialized with a finite aggregate capacity of insurance. It is currently not feasible to purchase insurance limits up to the maximum foreseeable loss occurrence due to insurance capacity constraints. Our insurance program is renewed annually, and our ability to maintain current levels of insurance is dependent on the conditions and financial stability of the commercial insurance markets serving our industries. Factors that impact insurance cost and availability include, but are not limited to: industry-wide losses, natural disasters, specific losses incurred by us, and the investment returns earned by the insurance industry. The energy insurance market underwrites many refineries having coastal hurricane risk exposure and off shore platforms, thus a significant hurricane occurrence could impact a number of refineries and have a catastrophic impact on the financial results of the entire insurance and reinsurance market serving our industry. If the supply of commercial insurance is curtailed due to highly adverse financial results we may not be able to continue our present limits of insurance coverage, or obtain sufficient insurance capacity to adequately insure our risks for property damage or business interruption.

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

Our operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the emission or discharge of pollutants into the environment, product specifications and the generation, treatment, storage, transportation, disposal and remediation of solid and hazardous wastes. Violations of these laws and regulations or permit conditions can result in substantial penalties, injunctive orders compelling installation of additional controls, civil and criminal sanctions, permit revocations and/or facility shutdowns.

In addition, new environmental laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased governmental enforcement of laws and regulations or other developments could require us to make additional unforeseen expenditures. Many of these laws and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to increase over time. The requirements to be met, as well as the technology and length of time available to meet those requirements, continue to develop and change. These expenditures or costs for environmental compliance could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and profitability.

Our facilities operate under a number of federal and state permits, licenses and approvals with terms and conditions containing a significant number of prescriptive limits and performance standards in order to operate. All of these permits, licenses, approval limits and standards require a significant amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit, license, approval limit or standard. Noncompliance or incomplete documentation of our compliance status may result in the imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive relief. Additionally, due to the nature of our manufacturing and refining processes, there may be times when we are unable to meet the standards and terms and conditions of our permits, licenses and approvals due to operational upsets or malfunctions, which may lead to the imposition of fines and penalties or operating restrictions that may have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our facilities and accordingly our financial performance.

Our businesses are subject to the occurrence of accidental spills, discharges or other releases of petroleum or hazardous substances into the environment. Past or future spills related to any of our current or former operations, including our refineries, pipelines, product terminals, fertilizer plant or transportation of products or hazardous substances from those facilities, may give rise to liability (including strict liability, or liability without fault, and potential cleanup responsibility) to governmental entities or private parties under federal, state or local environmental laws, as well as under common law. For example, we could be held strictly liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and similar state statutes for past or future spills without regard to fault or whether our actions were in compliance with the law at the time of the spills. Pursuant to CERCLA and similar state statutes, we could be held liable for contamination associated with facilities we currently own or operate (whether or not such contamination occurred prior to our acquisition thereof), facilities we formerly owned or operated (if any) and facilities to which we transported or arranged for the transportation of wastes or byproducts containing hazardous substances for treatment, storage, or disposal.

The potential penalties and cleanup costs for past or future releases or spills, liability to third parties for damage to their property or exposure to hazardous substances, or the need to address newly discovered information or conditions that may require response actions could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, we may incur liability for alleged personal injury or property damage due to exposure to chemicals or other hazardous substances located at or released from our facilities. We may also face liability for personal injury, property damage, natural resource damage or for cleanup costs for the alleged migration of contamination or other hazardous substances from our facilities to adjacent and other nearby properties.

On September 12, 2012, the EPA published in the Federal Register final revisions to its New Source Performance Standards for process heaters and flares at petroleum refineries. EPA originally issued final standards in June 2008, but the effective date of the regulation was stayed pending reconsideration of certain provisions. The final standards regulate emissions of nitrogen oxide from process heaters and emissions of sulfur dioxide from flares, as well as require certain work practice and monitoring standards for flares. We are reviewing the rule and expect to make any required capital expenditure to comply with the new requirements. We do not believe that the costs of complying with the rule will be material.

On August 14, 2012, the EPA sent both the Wynnewood and Coffeyville refineries letters regarding the EPA’s recently issued enforcement alert entitled EPA Enforcement Targets Flaring Efficiency Violations and the EPA’s related effort to conduct compliance evaluations and, where warranted, bring enforcement actions against petroleum refining companies that operate flares that are in noncompliance. Because the EPA has not specifically told us that our operations are in non-compliance, we cannot currently predict whether we may have to incur costs related to this EPA initiative.

In March 2004, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC (“CRRM”) and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC (“CRT”) entered into a Consent Decree (the “2004 Consent Decree”) with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the “KDHE”) to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA and KDHE related to Farmland Industries Inc.’s prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM agreed to install controls to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from its FCCU by January 1, 2011. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed cleanup obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities.

In March 2012, CRRM entered into a “Second Consent Decree” with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree (other than the clean-up obligations). The Second Consent Decree gives CRRM more time to install the FCCU controls from the 2004 Consent Decree and expands the scope of the settlement so that it is now considered a “global settlement” under the EPA’s “National Petroleum Refining Initiative.” Under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, the EPA identified industry-wide noncompliance with four “marquee” issues under the Clean Air Act: New Source Review, Flaring, Leak Detection and Repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The National Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in most U.S. refineries (representing more than 90% of the US refining capacity) entering into consent decrees imposing civil penalties and requiring the installation of pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. The EPA has indicated that it will seek to have all refiners enter into “global settlements” pertaining to all “marquee” issues. Under the Second Consent Decree, Coffeyville Resources was required to pay a civil penalty of approximately $0.7 million and is required to complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, the remaining costs of which are expected to be approximately $49.0 million, of which approximately $47.0 million is expected to be capital expenditures and complete a voluntary environmental project that will reduce air emissions and conserve water at an estimated cost of approximately $1.2 million. The incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree would not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over a five to seven year timeframe. The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012.

Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC (“WRC”) has not entered into a global settlement with the EPA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (the “ODEQ”) under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, although it had discussions with the EPA and ODEQ about doing so. Instead, WRC entered into a Consent Order

(the “Wynnewood Consent Order”) with ODEQ in August 2011 addressing some, but not all of the traditional marquee issues under the EPA’s National Petroleum Refining Initiative and addressing certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues that are generally beyond the scope of a traditional global settlement. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC agreed to pay a civil penalty, install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. The remaining costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order past 2012, other than costs associated with a scheduled turnaround, are not expected to be material.

In August 2012, Wynnewood received a letter from ODEQ alleging certain potential air quality emission violations. Wynnewood responded in September 2012 that it is not subject to any penalties for these alleged violations because they are covered by the Wynnewood Consent Order. Wynnewood hopes to settle these alleged violations, but there can be no assurance that the matter will settle and if it does not, Wynnewood will contest the alleged violations.

A number of factors could affect our ability to meet the requirements imposed by either the Second Consent Decree or the Wynnewood Consent Order and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Three of our facilities, including our Coffeyville refinery, the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal (which operated as a refinery until 1991), and the Wynnewood refinery have environmental contamination. We have assumed Farmland’s responsibilities under certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) administrative orders related to contamination at or that originated from the Coffeyville refinery and the Phillipsburg terminal. The Wynnewood refinery is required to conduct investigations to address potential off-site migration of contaminants from the west side of the property. Other known areas of contamination at the Wynnewood refinery have been partially addressed but corrective action has not been completed, and limited portions of the Wynnewood refinery have not yet been investigated to determine whether corrective action is necessary. If significant unknown liabilities are identified at any of our facilities, that liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows and may not be covered by insurance.

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

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

We hold numerous environmental and other governmental permits and approvals authorizing operations at our facilities. Future expansion of our operations is predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. A decision by a government agency to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed material permit or approval, or to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue operations and on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For example, WRC’s waste water permit has expired and is in the renewal process. At this time the facility is operating under its expired permit terms and conditions (called a permit shield) until the ODEQ renews the permit. The renewal permit may contain different terms and conditions that would require unplanned or unanticipated costs.

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

Various regulatory and legislative measures to address greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2 , methane and nitrous oxides) are in different phases of implementation or discussion. In the aftermath of its 2009 “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to human health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In October 2009, the EPA finalized a rule requiring certain large emitters of greenhouse gases to inventory and annually report their greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we have begun monitoring our greenhouse gas emissions and have already reported the emissions to the EPA for the year ended 2011. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring

Rule,” which established new greenhouse gas emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as the refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”), and Title V programs of the federal Clean Air Act. The significance of the permitting requirement is that, in cases where a new source is constructed or an existing source undergoes a major modification, the facility would need to evaluate and install best available control technology (“BACT”), to control greenhouse gas emissions. A major modification resulting in a significant expansion of production at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or one of our refineries that could cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions could necessitate the installation of BACT controls. The EPA’s endangerment finding, Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and certain other greenhouse gas emission rules have been challenged and are subject to extensive litigation. In December 2010, the EPA reached a settlement agreement with numerous parties under which it agreed to promulgate New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum refineries by November 2012.

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

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

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

In addition, climate change legislation and regulations may result in increased costs not only for our business but also for users of our refined and fertilizer products, thereby potentially decreasing demand for our products. Decreased demand for our products may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

We are subject to the requirements of OSHA and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers, and the proper design, operation and maintenance of our refinery equipment. In addition, OSHA and certain environmental regulations require that we maintain information about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that we provide this information to employees and state and local governmental authorities. Failure to comply with these requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements and monitoring and control of occupational exposure to regulated substances, may result in significant fines or compliance costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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

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

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

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

Both the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses depend on significant customers and the loss of one or several significant customers may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses both have a significant concentration of customers. The five largest customers of the petroleum business represented 35% of our petroleum sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2012. Further, the top five ammonia customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business represented approximately 65% of its ammonia sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2012, and the top five UAN customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business represented approximately 38% of its UAN sales for the same period. Several significant petroleum, ammonia and UAN customers each account for more than 10% of sales of petroleum, ammonia and UAN, respectively. Given the nature of our business, and consistent with industry practice, we do not have long-term minimum purchase contracts with any of our customers. The loss of several of these significant customers, or a significant reduction in purchase volume by several of them, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The acquisition and expansion strategy of our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business involves significant risks.

Both our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business will consider pursuing acquisitions and expansion projects in order to continue to grow and increase profitability. However, acquisitions and expansions involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including intense competition for suitable acquisition targets, the potential unavailability of financial resources necessary to consummate acquisitions and expansions, difficulties in identifying suitable acquisition targets and expansion projects or in completing any transactions identified on sufficiently favorable terms and the need to obtain regulatory or other governmental approvals that may be necessary to complete acquisitions and expansions. In addition, any future acquisitions and expansions may entail significant transaction costs and risks associated with entry into new markets and lines of business.

The nitrogen fertilizer business is in the process of expanding its nitrogen fertilizer plant, which is expected to allow it the flexibility to upgrade all of its ammonia production to UAN. This expansion is premised in large part on the historically higher margin that UAN has received compared to ammonia. If the premium that UAN currently earns over ammonia decreases, this expansion project may not yield the economic benefits and accretive effects that are currently anticipated.

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

· unforeseen difficulties in the integration of the acquired operations and disruption of the ongoing operations of our business;

· failure to achieve cost savings or other financial or operating objectives contributing to the accretive nature of an acquisition;

· strain on the operational and managerial controls and procedures of our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business, and the need to modify systems or to add management resources;

· difficulties in the integration and retention of customers or personnel and the integration and effective deployment of operations or technologies;

· assumption of unknown material liabilities or regulatory non-compliance issues;

· amortization of acquired assets, which would reduce future reported earnings;

· possible adverse short-term effects on our cash flows or operating results; and

· diversion of management’s attention from the ongoing operations of our business.

In particular, we are in the process of integrating Wynnewood Energy Company, LLC and its subsidiary into CVR Energy, Inc.’s internal control framework, and testing of these new controls is not yet complete.

In addition, in connection with any potential acquisition or expansion project involving the nitrogen fertilizer business, the nitrogen fertilizer business will need to consider whether the business it intends to acquire or expansion project it intends to pursue could affect the nitrogen fertilizer business’ tax treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. If the nitrogen fertilizer business is otherwise unable to conclude that the activities of the business being acquired or the expansion project would not affect the Partnership’s treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, the nitrogen fertilizer business may elect to seek a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Seeking such a ruling could be costly or, in the case of competitive acquisitions, place the nitrogen fertilizer business in a competitive disadvantage compared to other potential acquirers who do not seek such a ruling. If the nitrogen fertilizer business is unable to conclude that an activity would not affect its treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, and is unable or unwilling to obtain an IRS ruling, the nitrogen fertilizer business may choose to acquire such business or develop such expansion project in a corporate subsidiary, which would subject the income related to such activity to entity-level taxation, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to the unitholders and would likely cause a substantial reduction in the value of the nitrogen fertilizer business common units.

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

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

We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own substantially all of our assets. Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our obligations or to pay dividends or make other distributions in the future will depend upon the cash flow of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds by our subsidiaries to us in the form of dividends, distributions, tax sharing payments or otherwise. In addition, CRLLC, our indirect subsidiary, which is the primary obligor under our ABL credit facility and the issuer of our first lien and second lien secured notes, is a holding company, and its ability to meet its debt service obligations depends on the cash flow of its subsidiaries (including the distributions the Partnership makes on its common units, 70% of which are owned directly by CRLLC). The ability of our subsidiaries (including the Partnership) to make any payments to

us will depend on their earnings, the terms of their indebtedness, tax considerations and legal restrictions. In particular, the Partnership’s credit facility requires that, before the Partnership can make distributions to us, it must be in compliance with leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio tests.

Our internally generated cash flows and other sources of liquidity may not be adequate for our capital needs.

Refining businesses such as ours are capital intensive, and working capital needs may vary significantly over relatively short periods of time. For instance, crude oil price volatility can significantly impact working capital on a week-to-week and month-to-month basis. If we cannot generate adequate cash flow or otherwise secure sufficient liquidity to meet our working capital needs or support our short-term and long-term capital requirements, we may be unable to meet our debt obligations, pursue our business strategies or comply with certain environmental standards, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows. As of September 30, 2012, we had cash and cash equivalents of $988.2 million and $372.8 million available under the ABL Credit Facility (and had letters of credit outstanding of approximately $27.2 million). Crude oil price volatility can significantly impact working capital on a week-to-week and month-to-month basis.

A substantial portion of our workforce is unionized and we are subject to the risk of labor disputes and adverse employee relations, which may disrupt our business and increase our costs.

As of September 30, 2012, approximately 59% of the employees at the Coffeyville refinery and 63% of the employees at the Wynnewood refinery were represented by labor unions under collective bargaining agreements. At Coffeyville, the collective bargaining agreement with six Metal Trades Unions (which covers union members who work directly at the Coffeyville refinery) is effective through March 2013, and the collective bargaining agreement with United Steelworkers (which covers the balance of the Company’s unionized employees, who work in the terminal and related operations) is effective through March 2015, and automatically renews on an annual basis thereafter unless a written notice is received sixty days in advance of the relevant expiration date. The collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers with respect to the Wynnewood refinery expires in June 2015. We may not be able to renegotiate our collective bargaining agreements when they expire on satisfactory terms or at all. A failure to do so may increase our costs. In addition, our existing labor agreements may not prevent a strike or work stoppage at any of our facilities in the future, and any work stoppage could negatively affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our business may suffer if any of our key senior executives or other key employees discontinues employment with us. Furthermore, a shortage of skilled labor or disruptions in our labor force may make it difficult for us to maintain labor productivity.

Our future success depends to a large extent on the services of our key senior executives and key senior employees. Our business depends on our continuing ability to recruit, train and retain highly qualified employees in all areas of our operations, including accounting, business operations, finance and other key back-office and mid-office personnel. Furthermore, our operations require skilled and experienced employees with proficiency in multiple tasks. In particular, the nitrogen fertilizer facility relies on gasification technology that requires special expertise to operate efficiently and effectively. The competition for these employees is intense, and the loss of these executives or employees could harm our business. If any of these executives or other key personnel resign or become unable to continue in their present roles and are not adequately replaced, our business operations could be materially adversely affected. We do not maintain any “key man” life insurance for any executives.

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

The costs of complying with future regulations relating to the transportation of hazardous chemicals and security associated with the refining and nitrogen fertilizer facilities may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Targets such as refining and chemical manufacturing facilities may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other targets in the United States. As a result, the petroleum and chemical industries have responded to the issues that arose due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 by starting new initiatives relating to the security of petroleum and chemical industry facilities and the transportation of

hazardous chemicals in the United States. Future terrorist attacks could lead to even stronger, more costly initiatives that could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Compliance with and changes in the tax laws could adversely affect our performance.

We are subject to extensive tax liabilities, including United States and state income taxes and transactional taxes such as excise, sales/use, payroll, franchise and withholding taxes. New tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in the future.

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

As of September 30, 2012, after giving effect to the issuance in the fourth quarter of 2012 of our new second lien notes and the tender offer for and redemption of all of our first lien notes, we had outstanding approximately $222.8 million of second lien notes issued by Coffeyville Resources, $500 million of second lien notes issued by CVR Refining, LLC, and $27.2 million of issued but undrawn letters of credit (leaving borrowing availability of $372.8 million under the ABL Credit Facility), and the Partnership, our consolidated subsidiary that operates the nitrogen fertilizer plant, had $125.0 million in outstanding term loan borrowings and borrowing availability of $25.0 million under its revolving credit facility.

We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur significant additional indebtedness in the future. If new indebtedness is added to our current indebtedness, the risks described below could increase. Our level of indebtedness could affect our operations in several ways, including the following:

· a significant portion of our cash flows could be used to service our indebtedness;

· a high level of debt would increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;

· the covenants contained in the agreements governing our outstanding indebtedness will limit our ability to borrow additional funds, dispose of assets, pay distributions and make certain investments;

· a high level of debt may place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that are less leveraged, and therefore may be able to take advantage of opportunities that our indebtedness would prevent us from pursuing;

· our debt covenants may also affect our flexibility in planning for, and reacting to, changes in the economy and in our industry;

· a high level of debt may make it more likely that a reduction in our borrowing base following a periodic redetermination could require us to repay a portion of our then-outstanding bank borrowings; and

· a high level of debt may impair our ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, acquisitions, general corporate or other purposes.

In addition, borrowings under the ABL Credit Facility, the Partnership’s credit facility and other credit facilities we or our subsidiaries may enter into in the future may bear interest at variable rates. If market interest rates increase, such variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect our cash flow.

In addition to our debt service obligations, our operations require substantial investments on a continuing basis. Our ability to make scheduled debt payments, to refinance our obligations with respect to our indebtedness and to fund capital and non-capital expenditures necessary to maintain the condition of our operating assets, properties and systems software, as well as to provide capacity for the growth of our business, depends on our financial and operating performance. General economic conditions and financial, business and other factors affect our operations and our future performance. Many of these factors are beyond our control. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows to pay the interest on our debt, and future working capital, borrowings or equity financing may not be available to pay or refinance such debt.

In addition, we are and will be subject to covenants contained in agreements governing our present and future indebtedness. These covenants include, and will likely include, restrictions on certain payments, the granting of liens, the incurrence of additional indebtedness, dividend restrictions affecting subsidiaries, asset sales, transactions with affiliates and mergers and consolidations. Any failure to comply with these covenants could result in a default under the indentures governing our secured notes, the ABL Credit Facility, the Partnership’s credit facility and the agreements governing our other indebtedness. Upon a default, unless waived, the holders of our notes and the lenders under the ABL Credit Facility and the Partnership’s credit facility would have all remedies available to a secured lender, and could elect to terminate their commitments, cease making further loans, institute foreclosure proceedings against our or our subsidiaries’ assets, and force us and our subsidiaries into bankruptcy or liquidation, subject to the intercreditor agreements. In addition, any defaults could trigger cross defaults under other or future credit agreements or indentures. Our operating results may not be sufficient to service our indebtedness or to fund our other expenditures and we may not be able to obtain financing to meet these requirements.

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

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

· our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control; and

· our future ability to borrow under the ABL Credit Facility and the Partnership’s ability to borrow under its revolving credit facility, the availability of which depends on, among other things, compliance with the covenants in the ABL Credit Facility and the Partnership’s credit facility.

We cannot offer any assurance that our businesses will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that we will be able to draw under the ABL Credit Facility, or that the Partnership will be able to draw under its revolving credit facility, or from other sources of financing, in an amount sufficient to fund our liquidity needs. In addition, our board of directors may in the future elect to pay a special or regular dividend, engage in share repurchases or pursue other strategic options including acquisitions of other business or asset purchases, which would reduce cash available to service our debt obligations.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to service our indebtedness, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations, and the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In addition, in the absence of adequate cash flows or capital resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations, or sell equity, in order to meet our debt service and other obligations. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions for fair market value or at all. The ABL Credit Facility, the Partnership’s credit facility and the indentures governing our notes may restrict, or market or business conditions may limit, our ability to avail ourselves of some or all of these options. Furthermore, any proceeds that we could realize from any such dispositions may not be adequate to meet our debt service obligations when due. Neither the

Company’s shareholders nor any of their respective affiliates has any continuing obligation to provide us with debt or equity financing.

The borrowings under the ABL Credit Facility and the Partnership’s credit facility bear interest at variable rates and other debt we incur could likewise be variable-rate debt. If market interest rates increase, variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect our cash flow. While we may enter into agreements limiting our exposure to higher interest rates, any such agreements may not offer complete protection from this risk.

Covenants in our debt instruments could limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness and engage in certain transactions, which could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to pursue our business strategies.

The ABL Credit Facility, the indentures governing our debt and any other debt instruments that we or our subsidiaries may enter into in the future, will contain a number of restrictive covenants that will impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us and our subsidiaries and may limit our ability to engage in acts that may be in our long-term best interest, including restrictions on our ability, among other things, to:

· incur, assume or guarantee additional debt or issue redeemable stock or preferred stock;

· make distributions or prepay, redeem, or repurchase certain debt;

· enter into agreements that restrict distributions from restricted subsidiaries;

· incur liens;

· sell or otherwise dispose of assets, including capital stock of subsidiaries;

· enter into transactions with affiliates; and

· merge, consolidate or sell substantially all of our assets.

Any of these restrictions could limit our ability to plan for or react to market conditions and could otherwise restrict corporate activities. Any failure to comply with these covenants could result in a default under the ABL Credit Facility the Partnership’s credit facility and the indentures governing the notes. Upon a default, unless waived, the holders of our notes and the lenders under the ABL Credit Facility and the Partnership’s credit facility would have all remedies available to a secured lender, and could elect to terminate their commitments, cease making further loans, institute foreclosure proceedings against our assets, and force us into bankruptcy or liquidation, subject to the intercreditor agreements. In addition, a default under the ABL Credit Facility or the indentures governing the notes would trigger a cross default under our other agreements and could trigger a cross default under the agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our operating results may not be sufficient to service our indebtedness or to fund our other expenditures and we may not be able to obtain financing to meet these requirements.

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

We and the Partnership may be able to incur substantially more debt in the future, including secured indebtedness. Although the ABL Credit Facility and the indentures governing our other debt contain restrictions on our incurrence of additional indebtedness, and the Partnership’s credit facility contains restrictions on its incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In particular, we can incur additional indebtedness so long as our fixed charge coverage ratio (as defined in the indentures) exceeds 2:1. Also, these restrictions may not prevent us from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness. To the extent such new debt or new obligations are added to our existing indebtedness, the risks described above could substantially increase.

Mr. Carl C. Icahn exerts significant influence over the Company and his interests may conflict with the interest of the Company’s other stockholders.

Mr. Carl C. Icahn indirectly controls approximately 82% of the voting power of the Company’s capital stock and, by virtue of such stock ownership, is able to control or exert substantial influence over the Company, including:

· the election of directors;

· business strategy and policies;

· mergers or other business combinations;

· acquisition or disposition of assets;

· future issuances of common stock or other securities;

· incurrence of debt or obtaining other sources of financing; and

· the payment of dividends on the Company’s common stock.

The existence of a controlling stockholder may have the effect of making it difficult for, or may discourage or delay, a third party from seeking to acquire a majority of the Company’s outstanding common stock, which may adversely affect the market price of the stock.

Mr. Icahn’s interests may not always be consistent with the Company’s interests or with the interests of the Company’s other stockholders. Mr. Icahn and entities controlled by him may also pursue acquisitions or business opportunities in industries in which we compete, and there is no requirement that any additional business opportunities be presented to us. We also have and may in the future enter into transactions to purchase goods or services with affiliates of Mr. Icahn. To the extent that conflicts of interest may arise between the Company and Mr. Icahn and his affiliates, those conflicts may be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company or its other stockholders.

In addition, if Mr. Icahn were to sell, or otherwise transfer, some or all of his interests in us to an unrelated party or group, a change of control could be deemed to have occurred under the terms of the indentures governing our notes, which would require us to offer to repurchase all outstanding notes at 101% of their principal amount plus accrued interest to the date of repurchase, and the ABL Credit Facility, which would constitute an event of default under the ABL Credit Facility, which would allow our lenders to accelerate indebtedness owed to them. However, it is possible that we will not have sufficient funds at the time of the change of control to make the required repurchase of notes.

The Company’s stock price may decline due to sales of shares by Mr. Carl C. Icahn:

Sales of substantial amounts of the Company’s common stock, or the perception that these sales may occur, may adversely affect the price of the Company’s common stock and impede its ability to raise capital through the issuance of equity securities in the future. Mr. Icahn could elect in the future to request that the Company file a registration statement to enable him to sell shares of the Company’s common stock. If Mr. Icahn were to sell a large number of shares into the public markets, Mr. Icahn could cause the price of the Company’s common stock to decline.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the New York Stock Exchange rules and, as a result, qualify for, and are relying on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements.

A company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a “controlled company” within the meaning of the New York Stock Exchange rules and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange, including:

· the requirement that a majority of our board of directors consist of independent directors;

· the requirement that we have a nominating/corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors; and

· the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors.

We are relying on all of these exemptions as a controlled company. Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

We have various mechanisms in place to discourage takeover attempts, which may reduce or eliminate our stockholders’ ability to sell their shares for a premium in a change of control transaction.

Various provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and of Delaware corporate law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control or takeover attempt of our company by a third party that our management and board of directors determines is not in the best interest of our Company and its stockholders. Public stockholders who might desire to participate in such a transaction may not have the opportunity to do so. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change of control or change in our management and board of directors. These provisions include:

· preferred stock that could be issued by our board of directors to make it more difficult for a third party to acquire, or to discourage a third party from acquiring, a majority of our outstanding voting stock;

· limitations on the ability of stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;

· limitations on the ability of stockholders to act by written consent in lieu of a stockholders’ meeting; and

· advance notice requirements for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by our stockholders at stockholder meetings.

We are authorized to issue up to a total of 350 million shares of Common Stock and 50 million shares of Preferred Stock, potentially diluting equity ownership of current holders and the share price of our Common Stock.

We believe that it is necessary to maintain a sufficient number of available authorized shares of our Common Stock and Preferred Stock in order to provide us with the flexibility to issue Common Stock or Preferred Stock for business purposes that may arise as deemed advisable by our board of directors. These purposes could include, among other things, (i) to declare future stock dividends or stock splits, which may increase the liquidity of our shares; (ii) the sale of stock to obtain additional capital or to acquire other companies or businesses, which could enhance our growth strategy or allow us to reduce debt if needed; (iii) for use in additional stock incentive programs and (iv) for other bona fide purposes. Our board of directors may issue the available authorized shares of Common Stock or Preferred Stock without notice to, or further action by, our stockholders, unless stockholder approval is required by law or the rules of the New York Stock Exchange. The issuance of additional shares of Common Stock or Preferred Stock may significantly dilute the equity ownership of the current holders of our Common Stock.

Risks Related to the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which
We Currently Hold Our Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business

The board of directors of the Partnership’s general partner has adopted a policy to distribute all of the available cash the nitrogen fertilizer business generates on a quarterly basis, which could limit its ability to grow and make acquisitions.

The current policy of the board of directors of the Partnership’s general partner is to distribute all of the available cash the Partnership generates on a quarterly basis to its unitholders. As a result, the Partnership’s general partner will rely primarily upon external financing sources, including commercial bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures at the nitrogen fertilizer business. As a result, to the extent it is unable to finance growth externally the Partnership’s cash distribution policy will significantly impair its ability to grow. As of December 31, 2011, we owned approximately 70% of the Partnership’s outstanding common units, and public unitholders owned the remaining 30% of the Partnership’s common units.

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

The Partnership may not have sufficient available cash to pay any quarterly distribution on its common units. Furthermore, the Partnership is not required to make distributions to holders of its common units on a quarterly basis or otherwise, and may elect to distribute less than all of its available cash.

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

· The Partnership’s credit facility, and any credit facility or other debt instruments it may enter into in the future, may limit the distributions that the Partnership can make. The credit facility provides that the Partnership can make distributions to holders of common units only if it is in compliance with leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio covenants on a pro forma basis after giving effect to any distribution, and there is no default or event of default under the facility. In addition, any future credit facility may contain other financial tests and covenants that must be satisfied. Any failure to comply with these tests and covenants could result in the lenders prohibiting Partnership distributions.

· The amount of available cash for distribution to unitholders depends primarily on cash flow, and not solely on the profitability of the nitrogen fertilizer business, which is affected by non-cash items. As a result, the Partnership may make distributions during periods when it records losses and may not make distributions during periods when it records net income.

· The actual amount of available cash will depend on numerous factors, some of which are beyond the Partnership’s control, including UAN and ammonia prices, operating costs, global and domestic demand for nitrogen fertilizer products, fluctuations in working capital needs, and the amount of fees and expenses incurred by us.

If the Partnership were to be treated as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if the Partnership were otherwise subject to entity-level taxation, the Partnership’s cash available for distribution to its common unitholders, including to us, would be reduced, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of the Partnership’s common units, including the common units held by us.

During 2011, and in each taxable year thereafter, current law requires the Partnership to derive at least 90% of its annual gross income from certain specified activities in order to continue to be treated as a partnership, rather than as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Partnership may not find it possible to meet this qualifying income requirement, or may inadvertently fail to meet this qualifying income requirement. If the Partnership were to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it would pay U.S. federal income tax on all of its taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, it would likely pay additional state and local income taxes at varying rates, and distributions to the Partnership’s common unitholders, including to us, would generally be taxed as corporate distributions.

In addition, current U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including the Partnership, may be modified at any time by legislation, administrative rulings or judicial authority. Any such change may cause the Partnership to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject the Partnership to entity-level taxation. For example, members of Congress have considered substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws or interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for the Partnership to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted.

If the Partnership were to be treated as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if the Partnership were otherwise subject to entity-level taxation, the Partnership’s cash available for distribution to its common unitholders, including to us, and the value of the Partnership’s common units, including the common units held by us, could be substantially reduced.

Increases in interest rates could adversely impact the price of the Partnership’s common units and the Partnership’s ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions, incur debt or for other purposes.

We expect that the price of the Partnership’s common units will be impacted by the level of the Partnership’s quarterly cash distributions and implied distribution yield. The distribution yield is often used by investors to compare and rank related yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, changes in interest rates may affect the yield requirements of investors who invest in the Partnership’s common units, and a rising interest rate environment could have a material adverse impact on the price of the Partnership’s common units (and therefore the value of our investment in the Partnership) as well as the Partnership’s ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions or to incur debt.

We may have liability to repay distributions that are wrongfully distributed to us.

Under certain circumstances, we may, as a holder of common units in the Partnership, have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to us. Under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, the Partnership may not make a distribution to unitholders if the distribution would cause its liabilities to exceed the fair value of its assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of an 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 company for the distribution amount.

Public investors own approximately 30% of the nitrogen fertilizer business as a result of the Partnership IPO. Although we own the majority of the Partnership’s common units and the nitrogen fertilizer general partner, the general partner owes a duty of good faith to public unitholders, which could cause it to manage the nitrogen fertilizer business differently than if there were no public unitholders.

As a result of the Partnership IPO, public investors own approximately 30% of the Partnership’s common units. We are no longer entitled to receive all of the cash generated by the nitrogen fertilizer business or freely borrow money from the nitrogen fertilizer business to finance operations at the refinery, as we have in the past. Furthermore, although we own the Partnership’s general partner and continue to own the majority of the Partnership’s common units, the Partnership’s general partner is subject to certain fiduciary duties, which may require the general partner to manage the nitrogen fertilizer business in a way that may differ from our best interests.

The Company cannot own or operate a fertilizer business other than the Partnership without the consent of the Partnership’s general partner.

The Company and the Partnership have entered into an agreement in order to clarify and structure the division of corporate opportunities. Under this agreement, the Company has agreed not to engage in the production, transportation or distribution, on a wholesale basis, of fertilizers in the contiguous United States, subject to limited exceptions (fertilizer restricted business) without the consent of the Partnership’s general partner.

The Partnership is managed by the executive officers of its general partner, some of whom are employed by and serve as part of the senior management team of the Company and its affiliates. Conflicts of interest could arise as a result of this arrangement.

The Partnership is managed by the executive officers of its general partner, some of whom are employed by and serve as part of the senior management team of the Company. Furthermore, although the Partnership has entered into a services agreement with the Company under which it compensates the Company for the services of its management, the Company’s management is not required to devote any specific amount of time to the nitrogen fertilizer business and may devote a substantial majority of their time to the business of the Company. Moreover, the Company may terminate the services agreement at any time, subject to a 180-day notice period. In addition, key executive officers of the Company, including its chief operating officer, chief financial officer and general counsel, will face conflicts of interest if decisions arise in which the Partnership and the Company have conflicting points of view or interests.

The Partnership’s general partner has limited its liability in the partnership agreement and replaced default fiduciary duties with contractual corporate governance standards set forth therein, thereby restricting the remedies available to unitholders, including us, for actions that, without such replacement, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Partnership’s partnership agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to its unitholders, including the Company, for actions that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. For example, the partnership agreement:

· permits the general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its capacity as general partner, thereby entitling it to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and imposes no duty or obligation on the general partner to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, any limited partner;

· provides that the general partner shall not have any liability to unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it believed that the decision was in the best interests of the Partnership;

· �� generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of the general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to the Partnership, as determined

by its general partner in good faith, and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” the general partner may consider the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to affiliated parties, including us;

· provides that the general partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to common unitholders, including us, for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the general partner or its officers or directors acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that the conduct was criminal; and

· provides that in resolving conflicts of interest, it will be presumed that in making its decision, the general partner or its conflicts committee acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any holder of common units, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

With respect to the common units that we own, we have agreed to become bound by the provisions in our partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

The Partnership may issue additional common units and other equity interests without the approval of its common unitholders, which would dilute the existing ownership interests and rights to receive distributions from the Partnership.

Under the Partnership’s partnership agreement, the Partnership is authorized to issue an unlimited number of additional interests without a vote of the unitholders. The issuance of additional common units or other equity interests of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

· our proportionate ownership interest will decrease;

· the amount of cash distributions on each common unit will decrease;

· the ratio of our taxable income to distributions may increase;

· the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit will be diminished; and

· the market price of the common units may decline.

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

As a stand-alone public company, the Partnership is exposed to risks relating to evaluations of controls required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The Partnership is in the process of evaluating its internal controls systems to allow management to report on, and our independent auditors to audit, its internal control over financial reporting. It will be performing the system and process evaluation and testing (and any necessary remediation) required to comply with the management certification and auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and under current rules will be required to comply with Section 404 for the year ended December 31, 2012. Upon completion of this process, the Partnership may identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity under applicable SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) rules and regulations that remain unremediated. Although the Partnership produces financial statements in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), internal accounting controls may not currently meet all standards applicable to companies with publicly traded securities. As a publicly traded partnership, it will be required to report, among other things, control deficiencies that constitute a “material weakness” or changes in internal controls that, or that are reasonably likely to, materially affect internal control over financial reporting. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility

that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

If the Partnership fails to implement the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, it might be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities such as the SEC. If it does not implement improvements to its disclosure controls and procedures or to its internal controls in a timely manner, its independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to certify as to the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting pursuant to an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. This may subject the Partnership to adverse regulatory consequences or a loss of confidence in the reliability of its financial statements. It could also suffer a loss of confidence in the reliability of its financial statements if its independent registered public accounting firm reports a material weakness in its internal controls, if it does not develop and maintain effective controls and procedures or if it is otherwise unable to deliver timely and reliable financial information. Any loss of confidence in the reliability of its financial statements or other negative reaction to its failure to develop timely or adequate disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls could result in a decline in the price of its common units, which would reduce the value of our investment in the Partnership. In addition, if the Partnership fails to remedy any material weakness, its financial statements may be inaccurate, it may face restricted access to the capital markets and the price of its common units may be adversely affected, which would reduce the value of our investment in the Partnership.

Risks Related to the Wynnewood Acquisition

Challenges in operating the Wynnewood Refinery and/or newly enlarged combined business or difficulties in successfully integrating the businesses of the Company and WEC within the expected time frame could adversely affect our company’s future results following the Wynnewood Acquisition.

As a result of the Wynnewood Acquisition, we doubled our number of refineries from one to two and increased our refining throughput capacity by over 50%. The ultimate success of the Wynnewood Acquisition will depend, in large part, on our ability to successfully expand the scale and geographic scope of our operations across state lines and to realize the anticipated benefits, including synergies, cost savings, innovation and operational efficiencies, from combining the businesses of the Company and WEC. To realize these anticipated benefits, the business of WEC must be successfully integrated into the Company. This integration will be complex and time-consuming.

The failure to integrate successfully and to manage successfully the challenges presented by the integration process may result in the combined company not achieving the anticipated benefits of the merger. Potential difficulties that may be encountered in the integration process include the following:

· the inability to successfully integrate the business of WEC into the Company in a manner that permits the combined company to achieve the full revenue and cost savings anticipated to result from the merger;

· complexities associated with managing the larger, more complex, combined business;

· integrating personnel from the two companies while maintaining focus on providing consistent, high-quality service;

· potential unknown liabilities and unforeseen expenses associated with the Wynnewood Acquisition;

· performance shortfalls at one or both of the companies as a result of the diversion of management’s attention caused by completing the Wynnewood Acquisition and integrating the companies’ operations;

Even if the Company is able to successfully integrate the business operations of WEC, there can be no assurance that this integration will result in the realization of the full benefits of the expected synergies, cost savings, innovation and operational efficiencies or that these benefits will be achieved within the anticipated time frame.

The future results of the combined company will suffer if the Company does not effectively manage its expanded operations following the Wynnewood Acquisition.

Following the Wynnewood Acquisition, the size of the Company’s business increased significantly and our existing management and operational infrastructure is responsible for operating two refineries located in different states. The combined company’s future success depends, in part, upon its ability to manage this expanded business, which will pose substantial challenges for management, including challenges related to the management and monitoring of new operations and associated increased costs and complexity. There can be no assurances that the combined company will be successful or that it will realize the expected operating efficiencies, cost savings, revenue enhancements and other benefits currently anticipated from the Wynnewood Acquisition.

The Company has incurred and is expected to continue to incur substantial expenses related to the Wynnewood Acquisition and the integration of WEC.

The Company has incurred and is expected to continue to incur substantial expenses in connection with the Wynnewood Acquisition and the integration of WEC. There are a large number of processes, policies, procedures, operations, technologies and systems that must be integrated, including purchasing, accounting and finance, sales, billing, payroll, pricing, revenue management, maintenance, marketing and benefits. While the Company has assumed that a certain level of expenses would be incurred, there are many factors beyond its control that could affect the total amount or the timing of the integration expenses. Moreover, many of the expenses that will be incurred are, by their nature, difficult to estimate accurately. These expenses could, particularly in the near term, exceed the savings that the combined company expects to achieve from the elimination of duplicative expenses and the realization of economies of scale and cost savings. These integration expenses likely will result in the combined company taking significant charges against earnings following the completion of the Wynnewood Acquisition, and the amount and timing of such charges are uncertain at present.

The risks associated with U.S. government contracts differ from the risks associated with typical commercial contracts and could have a material adverse effect on the business and operations of the combined company.

Since 1996, WEC has been party to a contract (renewed annually) with the United States government to sell jet fuel to Mid-Continent Air Force bases. This contract accounted for 3% of WEC’s fuel sales in 2011. U.S. government contracts contain provisions and are subject to laws and regulations that provide the government with rights and remedies not typically found in commercial contracts. In the event that WEC is found to have violated certain laws or regulations, WEC could be subject to penalties and sanctions, including, in the most serious cases, potential suspension or debarment from conducting future business with the U.S. government. As a result of the need to comply with these laws and regulations, WEC could also be subject to increased risks of governmental investigations, civil fraud actions, criminal prosecutions, whistleblower law suits and other enforcement actions. By way of example, civil False Claims Act actions could subject us to treble penalties, and we could be subject to fines of up to $12,000 for each claim submitted to the U.S. government.

U.S. government contracts are subject to modification, curtailment or termination by the U.S. government with little notice, either for convenience or for default as a result of WEC’s failure to perform under the applicable contract. If the U.S. government terminates this contract as a result of WEC’s default, WEC could be liable for additional costs the U.S. government incurs in acquiring undelivered goods or services from another source and any other damages it suffers. Additionally, WEC cannot assign prime U.S. government contracts without the prior consent of the U.S. government contracting officer, and WEC is required to register with the Central Contractor Registration Database.

There can be no assurance that we will maintain this jet fuel contract with the United States Government in the future.

We may not have identified all risks associated with the Wynnewood Acquisition and a significant liability may still arise after the closing of the Wynnewood Acquisition. Our rights to indemnification under the acquisition agreement related to the Wynnewood Acquisition may not fully protect us and may be difficult to enforce.

The Wynnewood refinery may have unexpected deficiencies and/or we may become responsible for unexpected liabilities that we failed or were unable to discover in the course of performing due diligence in connection with the Wynnewood Acquisition. The acquisition agreement entered into in connection with the Wynnewood Acquisition requires the seller to indemnify us under certain circumstances. However our rights to indemnification are limited and we cannot assure you that the indemnification, even if obtained, will be enforceable, collectible or sufficient in amount, scope or duration to fully cover a valid claim and/or offset the possible liabilities associated with the business or property acquired. The indemnification provisions in the acquisition agreement related to the Wynnewood Acquisition may also be difficult to enforce. Any of these liabilities, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to CVR Refining, LP

The initial public offering of CVR Refining, LP (the “Refining IPO”) may not occur on the terms described herein or at all.

A registration statement on Form S-1 with respect to the potential initial public offering of CVR Refining, LP was filed on October 1, 2012 and is currently under review by the SEC. However, there can be no assurance that the Refining IPO will occur in the manner described in this report or at all. The consummation of the Refining IPO is subject to numerous factors, including many factors outside of our control, including regulatory approval, market conditions, reaching agreements with underwriters and potential lenders, the political and economic environment in the United States, board approval at CVR Energy, and many other factors. The board of directors of CVR Energy may elect at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, not to proceed with the Refining IPO, notwithstanding that a registration statement has been filed with the SEC with respect to the Refining IPO. Accordingly, you should not assume that the Refining IPO will occur in the manner described herein or at all.

Positive
Negative
Uncertain
Constraining
Legalese
Litigous
Readability	H.S. freshman Avg

CVR Energy (CVI) 10-Q2012 Q3 Quarterly report

Content analysis