XML 39 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies. Automotive Environmental Matters Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities. Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited. Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants. Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $14 million and $15 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At December 31, 2015, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $44 million. Asset Retirement Obligations Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $16 million and $24 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, for ARO's, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials at its facilities, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts. Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites. Other Matter On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“F-M Products”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when F-M Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul is unable to estimate any reasonably possible range of loss for reasons including that the plaintiffs did not claim any amount of damages in their complaint. F-M Products intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Energy Unconditional Purchase Obligations The minimum required payments for CVR's unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
| Unconditional Purchase Obligations(1)
| (in millions)
2016 | $ | 141 |
2017 | 126 |
2018 | 124 |
2019 | 124 |
2020 | 108 |
Thereafter | 727 |
| $ | 1,350 |
(1)This amount includes $782 million payable ratably over 15 years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and each of TransCanada Keystone Limited Partnership and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (together, "TransCanada"). The purchase obligation reflects the exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar as of December 31, 2015, where applicable. Under the agreements, CRRM receives transportation of at least 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil with a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma for a term of 20 years on TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system. CRRM began receiving crude oil under the agreements in the first quarter of 2011. Unconditional Purchase Obligations CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, total lease expense was $9 million. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CVR's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire. Additionally, in the normal course of business, CVR has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services. Crude Oil Supply Agreement On August 31, 2012, CRRM and Vitol Inc. ("Vitol"), entered into an Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (as amended, the "Vitol Agreement"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of any Renewal Term. The Vitol Agreement currently extends through December 31, 2016. Litigation From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under, "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that CVR's management estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of CVR management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that CVR management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters will prove to be accurate. On June 21, 2012, Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("GS") filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay GS fees allegedly due to GS by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 21, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that GS was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock, made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting GS's motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.6 million. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014. On November 24, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to GS, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal. In October 2015, CVR entered into a settlement agreement with GS pursuant to which (i) CVR received settlement proceeds, (ii) the parties executed a mutual release and (iii) CVR’s appeal has been dismissed. The settlement did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank ("DB") filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB fees allegedly due to DB by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 23, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that DB was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting DB's motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.7 million. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014. In October 2015, CVR entered into a settlement agreement with DB pursuant to which (i) CVR received settlement proceeds, (ii) the parties executed a mutual release and (iii) CVR’s appeal has been dismissed. The settlement did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the board of directors of Rentech Nitrogen GP (the "Rentech Nitrogen Board"), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit"). The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Sloan Lawsuit"). The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the CVR Partners Merger Agreement and failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-206982), which was originally filed with the SEC by CVR Partners on September 17, 2015. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to enjoin the CVR Partners Mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may cause the CVR Partners Mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could cause the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership not to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the CVR Partners Mergers. No amounts have been recognized in these consolidated financial statements regarding the lawsuits. On February 1, 2016, the parties to the Mustard Lawsuit and the Sloan Lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) providing for the proposed settlement of the lawsuits. While the defendants believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, they have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed mergers. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Rentech Nitrogen’s unitholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims by unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen challenging any aspect of the proposed mergers, the CVR Partners Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the prospectus and definitive proxy statement, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to such unitholders prior to final approval of the proposed settlement. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs’ counsel will file a petition in the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid by Rentech Nitrogen or its successor. The proposed settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the CVR Partners Mergers becoming effective under Delaware law. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the proposed settlement is not approved and such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits. CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas (the "County") in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the County reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of $11 million per year for each of the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $12 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $11 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals ("BOTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the BOTA decision in part and remanded the case to BOTA, instructing BOTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as BOTA did originally. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals and a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, both of which have been denied. In March 2015, BOTA concluded that based upon an asset by asset determination, a substantial majority of the assets in dispute will be classified as personal property for the 2008 tax year. CRNF and the County next will submit evidence of valuation to BOTA with respect to the real property, following which, BOTA will issue its final decision. No amounts have been received or recognized in these consolidated financial statements related to the 2008 property tax matter or BOTA's decision. On February 25, 2013, the County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about $11 million per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 to 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides the County will support CRNF's application before BOTA for a ten-year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment discussed above. The SEC is conducting an investigation in connection with CVR's disclosures following the announcement of a tender offer for its stock initiated in February 2012. CVR is cooperating with the SEC and has produced, at the SEC's request, documents pertaining to the tender offer and its disclosures. Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance Crude oil was discharged from the Coffeyville refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shutdown and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. On October 25, 2010, the CVR received a letter from the United States Coast Guard on behalf of the EPA seeking approximately $1.8 million in oversight cost reimbursement. CVR responded by asserting defenses to the Coast Guard's claim for oversight costs. On September 23, 2011, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting on behalf of the EPA and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program ("RMP"), the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and the OPA. CRRM reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving its claims under CWA and OPA. The agreement was memorialized in a Consent Decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on February 12, 2013 and March 25, 2013, respectively (the "2013 Consent Decree"). On April 19, 2013, CRRM paid a civil penalty (including accrued interest) in the amount of $0.6 million related to the CWA claims and reimbursed the Coast Guard for oversight costs under OPA in the amount of $1.7 million. The 2013 Consent Decree also requires CRRM to make small capital upgrades to the Coffeyville refinery crude oil tank farm, develop flood procedures and provide employee training, the majority of which have already been completed. The parties also reached an agreement to settle DOJ’s claims related to alleged non-compliance with RMP. The agreement is memorialized in a separate consent decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively, and provided for a civil penalty of $0.3 million. On July 29, 2013, CRRM paid the civil penalty related to the RMP claims. In 2015, CRRM continued to implement the recommendations of several audits required by the RMP Consent Decree, which were related to compliance with RMP requirements. CRRM sought insurance coverage for the crude oil release and for the ultimate costs for remediation and third-party property damage claims. On July 10, 2008, CVR filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the "Court") against certain of CVR's environmental insurance carriers requesting insurance coverage indemnification for the June/July 2007 flood and crude oil discharge losses. Each insurer reserved its rights under various policy exclusions and limitations and cited potential coverage defenses. The Court issued summary judgment opinions that eliminated the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses. CRRM has received $25 million of insurance proceeds under its primary environmental liability insurance policy, which constitutes full payment of the primary pollution liability policy limit. During the second quarter of 2015, CRRM entered into a settlement agreement and release with the insurance carriers involved in the lawsuit, pursuant to which (i) CRRM received settlement proceeds of approximately $31 million, (ii) the parties mutually released each other from all claims relating to the flood and crude oil discharge and (iii) all pending appeals have been dismissed. Of the settlement proceeds received, $27 million were recorded as a flood insurance recovery located in other income within the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The remaining $4 million of settlement proceeds reduced $4 million of receivable related to this matter, which was included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2014. Environmental, Health and Safety Matters The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local Environmental, Health and Safety ("EHS") rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. CRRM, CRNF, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT") own and/or operate manufacturing and ancillary operations at various locations directly related to petroleum refining and distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT have exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at these locations. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the OPA generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that CVR's operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs for our Energy segment. CRRM and CRT have agreed to perform corrective actions at the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg, Kansas terminal facility, pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent issued under RCRA to address historical contamination by the prior owners (RCRA Docket No. VII-94-H-20 and Docket No. VII-95-H-11, respectively). WRC and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ") have entered into a Consent Order (Case No. 15-056) to resolve certain legacy environmental issues related to historical groundwater contamination and the operation of a wastewater conveyance. As December 31, 2015 and 2014, environmental accruals of $4 million and $1 million, respectively, were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders and the ODEQ Consent Order. Accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment costs through 2026, for which the scope of remediation was arranged with the EPA and ODEQ, and were discounted at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2015 and 2014. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of less than $1 million for the two landfills at both December 31, 2015 and 2014. CVR's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate. In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II ("MSAT II") rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. The MSAT II projects for CRRM and WRC were completed within the compliance deadline of November 1, 2014. The projects were completed at a total cost, excluding capitalized interest, of $48 million for CRRM and $89 million for WRC. In April 2014, the EPA promulgated the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, which will require that gasoline contain no more than ten parts per million of sulfur on an annual average basis. Refineries must be in compliance with the more stringent emission standards by January 1, 2017; however, compliance with the rule is extended until January 1, 2020 for approved small volume refineries and small refiners. In March 2015, the EPA approved the Wynnewood refinery's application requesting "small volume refinery" status; therefore, its compliance deadline is January 1, 2020. It is not anticipated that CVR's refineries will require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard. CVR Refining is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") which requires refiners to either blend "renewable fuels" with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs in lieu of blending. Due to mandates in the RFS requiring increasing volumes of renewable fuels to replace petroleum products in the U.S. transportation fuel market, there may be a decrease in demand for petroleum products. Beginning in 2011, the Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its transportation fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending. In 2013, the Wynnewood refinery was subject to the RFS for the first time. CVR Refining is not able to blend the substantial majority of its transportation fuels and has to purchase RINs on the open market, as well as waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels from the EPA, in order to comply with the RFS. The cost of RINs has been extremely volatile as the EPA's proposed renewable fuel volume mandates approached the "blend wall." The blend wall refers to the point at which the amount of ethanol blended into the transportation fuel supply exceeds the demand for transportation fuel containing such levels of ethanol. The blend wall is generally considered to be reached when more than 10% ethanol by volume ("E10 gasoline") is blended into transportation fuel. On December 14, 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule establishing the renewable fuel volume mandates for 2014, 2015 and 2016, and the biomass-based diesel mandate for 2017. The volumes included in the EPA's final rule increase each year, but are lower, with the exception of the volumes for biomass-based diesel, than the volumes required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA used its waiver authority to lower the volumes, but its decision to do so has been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The cost of RINs for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $124 million, $127 million and $181 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, CVR Refining's biofuel blending obligation was $10 million and $52 million, respectively, which is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. The price of RINs has been extremely volatile and has increased over the last year. The future cost of RINs is difficult to estimate. Additionally, the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business' petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at the its refineries and downstream terminals, all of which can vary significantly from period to period. In March 2004, CRRM and 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 clean-up obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. In March 2012, CRRM entered into a second consent decree (the "Second Consent Decree") with the EPA and KDHE, which replaced the 2004 Consent Decree (other than certain financial assurance provisions associated with corrective action at the refinery and terminal under RCRA). The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012. The Second Consent Decree gave 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 alleged industry-wide non-compliance 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 U.S. refining capacity) entering into consent decrees requiring the payment of civil penalties and the installation of air pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. Under the Second Consent Decree, CRRM was required to pay a civil penalty of less than $1 million and complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, add controls to certain heaters and boilers and enhance certain work practices relating to wastewater and fugitive emissions. The remaining costs of complying with the Second Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $44 million. Additional incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree will not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over several year time-frame. CRRM has entered into an agreement with the EPA and KDHE to modify provisions in the Second Consent Decree relating to the installation of controls to reduce air emissions of sulfur dioxide from the refinery's FCCU. Pursuant to the terms of the modification, CRRM will be permitted to use alternative means of control to those currently specified in the Second Consent Decree provided it can meet the limits specified in the modification. In consideration for the EPA and KDHE's agreement to permit CRRM to use alternative controls, CRRM will pay higher stipulated penalties if it fails to meet the SO 2 limits and, if it elects to install the original controls, will have to take additional steps to avoid negative impacts to the Verdigris River associated with the original controls. The modification has been signed by CRRM, the EPA and KDHE, and on February 10, 2016, the modification was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The modification is subject to public notice and comment and, ultimately, approval by the court. WRC entered into a Consent Order with ODEQ in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues related to the operations of the prior owner. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC paid a civil penalty of $950,000 and agreed to install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. A substantial portion of the costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order were expended during the last turnaround. The remaining costs are expected to be approximately $3 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a release from liability from ODEQ for matters described in the ODEQ order. In January 2014, the EPA issued an inspection report to the Wynnewood refinery related to a RCRA compliance evaluation inspection conducted in March 2013. In February 2014, ODEQ notified WRC that it concurred with the EPA's inspection findings and would be pursuing enforcement. WRC and ODEQ entered into a Consent Order in June 2015 resolving all alleged non-compliance associated with the RCRA compliance evaluation inspection, as well as issues related to possible soil and groundwater contamination associated with the prior owner's operation of the refinery. The Consent Order requires WRC to take certain corrective actions, including specified groundwater remediation and monitoring measures pursuant to a work plan to be approved by ODEQ. CVR Refining does not anticipate that the costs of complying with the Consent Order will be material. Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, capital expenditures were approximately $36 million, $101 million and $111 million, respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believe it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on CVR's business, financial condition, or results of operations. On September 28, 2012, the Wynnewood refinery experienced an explosion in a boiler unit during startup after a short outage as part of the turnaround process. Two employees were fatally injured. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler. Additionally, there has been no evidence of environmental impact. The refinery was in the final stages of shutdown for turnaround maintenance at the time of the incident. The petroleum business completed an internal investigation of the incident and cooperated with OSHA in its investigation. OSHA also conducted a general inspection of the facility during the boiler incident investigation. In March 2013, OSHA completed its investigation and communicated its citations to WRC. OSHA also placed WRC in its Severe Violators Enforcement Program ("SVEP"). WRC is vigorously contesting the citations and OSHA's placement of WRC in the SVEP. Any penalties associated with OSHA's citations are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. In addition to the above, the spouses of the two employees fatally injured have filed a civil lawsuit against CVR Refining and CVR Energy in Fort Bend County, Texas. The companies will vigorously defend the suit. It is currently too early to assess a potential outcome in the matter. Metals Environmental Matters Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $29 million and $28 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business. Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time. PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. In addition, one of PSC Metals' Knoxville locations was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of December 31, 2015 and 2014. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material. In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation. MDNR and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals is in the process of completing the final stages of the remediation required by the settlement agreement. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of remediation associated with its Festus yard and the residential areas near the yard. However, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner. Railcar On October 24, 2014, ARI filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gyansys, Inc. ("Gyansys"). The complaint asserts a claim against Gyansys for breaching its contract with ARI to implement an enterprise resource planning system. ARI seeks to recover monetary damages in an amount still to be determined, but which ARI alleged exceeds $25 million. Gyansys filed a response to the suit denying its responsibility. It also counterclaimed against ARI for a breach of contract and wrongful termination, seeking damages in excess of $10 million and equitable relief. At this time, ARI does not have sufficient information to reasonably form an estimate of the potential outcome (gain or loss) of this litigation. On September 9, 2015, the court denied ARI's motion to dismiss the wrongful termination counterclaim. However, ARI continues to believe that Gyansys' counterclaims lack merit and will continue to vigorously defend against these counterclaims. Gaming Tropicana AC Tax Appeal Settlement In January 2013, Tropicana settled outstanding real estate tax appeals involving our Tropicana AC property with the City of Atlantic City. The settlement involves the tax years 2008 through 2012 and also covers negotiated real estate assessments for 2013 and 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC was to receive approximately $50 million refund in the form of credits against annual real estate tax bills beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. The credits were to be front-loaded in 2013 and 2014 so that after the credits were applied, Tropicana AC paid approximately $2 million in taxes in 2013. Tropicana utilized $16 million of credits as a reduction to operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, Tropicana expensed $4 million in professional fees related to this settlement in the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, Tropicana received approximately $32 million in cash as payment to satisfy future credits. Tropicana Evansville Land Lease Tropicana leases from the city of Evansville, Indiana approximately ten acres of the approximately 20 acres on which Tropicana Evansville is situated. On January 6, 2016, Tropicana and the city of Evansville entered into a sixth amendment to the lease agreement (the "Sixth Amendment"). Under the Sixth Amendment, in exchange for Tropicana's commitment to expend $50 million to develop a landside gaming facility (the "Tropicana Development Project") along with a prepayment of lease rent in the amount of $25 million (the "Rental PrePayments"), the city of Evansville has granted Tropicana a $20 million redevelopment credit (the "Redevelopment Credit"). The Rental PrePayments are to be made in two payments of $12.5 million each. Tropicana has made the first $12.5 million Rental PrePayment, and the second $12.5 million Rental PrePayment is due upon the opening of the Tropicana Development Project to the public. Both the Rental PrePayments and the Redevelopment Credits will be applied against future rent in equal monthly amounts over a period of one hundred and twenty (120) months commencing upon the opening of the Tropicana Development Project to the public. Under the terms of the lease, as amended by the Sixth Amendment, Tropicana may extend the lease term through November 30, 2055 by exercising renewal options. The current term commenced December 1, 2015 and expires November 30, 2027 under the terms of the Sixth Amendment. Thereafter, Tropicana may extend the lease for a three (3) year term through November 30, 2030, followed by five (5) five-year renewal options through November 30, 2055. Under the terms of the Sixth Amendment, in the event Tropicana decides not to exercise its renewal option(s) and continues to conduct gaming operations in the city of Evansville, the lease may not be terminated and will continue through November 30, 2055, unless Tropicana and the city of Evansville enter into a replacement agreement that includes payments to the city of Evansville in the amount equal to rent payments under the lease. Under the terms of the lease, as amended by the Sixth Amendment, Tropicana is required to pay a percentage of the adjusted gross receipts for the year in rent with a minimum annual rent of no less than $2 million, subject to certain escalations and caps. In accordance with a prior lease amendment in March 2010, during 2010 Tropicana paid a total of $14 million for the prepayment of rent to the city of Evansville for the period between January 2011 and December 2015. Other Matters Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 89.0% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of December 31, 2015. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group. As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $589 million and $474 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events. Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire"), which is 99.4% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us. Consolidated Leases Consolidated future minimum lease payments under operating leases with initial terms of one or more years consist of the following at December 31, 2015:
Year |  | Amount
|  | (in millions)
2016 |  | $ | 104 |
2017 |  | 88 |
2018 |  | 82 |
2019 |  | 55 |
2020 |  | 48 |
Thereafter |  | 156 |
|  | $ | 533 |

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration