The minimum required payments for CVR's lease agreements and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:

Year Ending December 31,	Operating Leases		Unconditional Purchase Obligations(1)

	(in thousands)
2012	$	8,793	$	102,164
2013		8,022		101,164
2014		6,076		101,244
2015		4,566		93,819
2016		3,776		94,155
Thereafter		8,332		411,408

	$	39,565	$	903,954

CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, lease expense totaled approximately $5.1 million, $5.1 million and $5.1 million, respectively. 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, the Company has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services. See below for further discussion and related expense of material long-term commitments.

CRNF has an agreement with the City of Coffeyville (the "City") pursuant to which it must make a series of future payments for the supply, generation and transmission of electricity and City margin based upon agreed upon rates. This agreement has an expiration of July 1, 2019. Effective August 2008 and through July 2010, the City began charging a higher rate for electricity than what had been agreed to in the contract. CRNF filed a lawsuit to have the contract enforced as written and to recover other damages. CRNF paid the higher rates under protest and subject to the lawsuit in order to obtain the electricity. In August 2010, the lawsuit was settled and CRNF received a return of funds totaling approximately $4.8 million. This return of funds was recorded in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations during the third quarter of 2010. In connection with the settlement, the electrical services agreement was amended. As a result of the amendment, the annual committed contractual payments are estimated to be approximately $1.9 million and the estimated remaining obligation of CRNF totaled approximately $14.9 million through July 1, 2019. These estimates are subject to change based upon the Company's actual usage.

CRRM has a Pipeline Construction, Operation and Transportation Commitment Agreement with Plains Pipeline, L.P. ("Plains Pipeline") pursuant to which Plains Pipeline constructed a crude oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Caney, Kansas. The term of the agreement expires on March 1, 2025. Pursuant to the agreement, CRRM transported approximately 80,000 barrels per day of its crude oil requirements for the Coffeyville refinery at a fixed charge per barrel for the first five years of the agreement and for the remaining fifteen years of the agreement, CRRM must transport all of its non-gathered crude oil up to the capacity of the Plains Pipeline. The rate is subject to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") tariff and is subject to change on an annual basis per the agreement. Lease expense associated with this agreement and included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $9.8 million, $11.4 million and $11.0 million, respectively.

During 2005, CRRM entered into a Pipeage Contract with Mid-American Pipeline Company ("MAPL") pursuant to which CRRM agreed to ship a minimum quantity of NGLs on an inbound pipeline operated by MAPL between Conway, Kansas and Coffeyville, Kansas. Pursuant to the contract, CRRM is obligated to ship 2 million barrels ("Minimum Commitment") of NGLs per year at a fixed rate per barrel . All barrels above the Minimum Commitment are at a different fixed rate per barrel. The rates are subject to a tariff approved by the Kansas Corporation Commission ("KCC") and are subject to change throughout the term of this contract as ordered by the KCC. In 2011, MAPL filed an application with KCC to increase rates, as discussed in further detail below in the Litigation section. Lease expense associated with this contract agreement and included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $1.3 million, $2.4 million and $2.4 million, respectively.

During 2004, CRRM entered into a Transportation Services Agreement with CCPS Transportation, LLC ("CCPS") pursuant to which CCPS reconfigured an existing pipeline ("Spearhead Pipeline") to transport Canadian sourced crude oil to Cushing, Oklahoma. The agreement expires March 1, 2016. Pursuant to the agreement and pursuant to options for increased capacity which CRRM has exercised, CRRM is obligated to pay an incentive tariff, which is a fixed rate per barrel for a minimum of 10,000 barrels per day. Lease expense associated with this agreement included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $8.4 million, $16.6 million and $9.7 million, respectively.

During 2004, CRRM entered into a Terminalling Agreement with Plains Marketing, LP ("Plains") whereby CRRM has the exclusive storage rights for working storage, blending, and terminalling services at several Plains tanks in Cushing, Oklahoma. During 2007, CRRM entered into an Amended and Restated Terminalling Agreement with Plains that replaced the 2004 agreement. Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Terminalling Agreement, CRRM is obligated to pay fees on a minimum throughput volume commitment of 29.2 million barrels per year. Fees are subject to change annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") and the Producer Price Index ("PPI-NG"). Expenses associated with this agreement, included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $2.4 million, $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The original term of the Amended and Restated Terminalling Agreement expires December 31, 2014, but is subject to annual automatic extensions of one year beginning two years and one day following the effective date of the agreement, and successively every year thereafter unless either party elects not to extend the agreement. Concurrently with the above-described Amended and Restated Terminalling Agreement, CRRM entered into a separate Terminalling Agreement with Plains whereby CRRM has obtained additional exclusive storage rights for working storage and terminalling services at several Plains tanks in Cushing, Oklahoma. CRRM is obligated to pay Plains fees based on the storage capacity of the tanks involved, and such fees are subject to change annually based on changes in the Producer Price Index ("PPI-FG" and "PPI-NG"). Expenses associated with this Terminalling Agreement totaled approximately $3.3 million, $3.1 million and $3.5 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Select tanks covered by this agreement have been designated as delivery points for crude oil.

During 2005, CRNF entered into the Amended and Restated On-Site Product Supply Agreement with The Boc Group, Inc. (as predecessor in interest to Linde LLC). Pursuant to the agreement, which expires in 2020, CRNF is required to take as available and pay approximately $300,000 per month, which amount is subject to annual inflation adjustments, for the supply of oxygen and nitrogen to the fertilizer operation. Expenses associated with this agreement included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $4.2 million, $4.7 million and $4.1 million, respectively.

During 2006, CRRM entered into a Lease Storage Agreement with Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC ("Enterprise") (as successor in interest to TEPPCO Crude Pipeline, L.P.) whereby CRRM leases tank capacity at Enterprise's Cushing tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma. In September 2006, CRRM exercised its option to increase the shell capacity leased at the facility subject to this agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, CRRM is obligated to pay a monthly per barrel fee regardless of the number of barrels of crude oil actually stored at the leased facilities. Expenses associated with this agreement included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled approximately $1.8 million, $1.3 million and $1.3 million, respectively. CRRM and Enterprise entered into a new five-year lease agreement for the above-described tank capacity effective March 1, 2011.

On October 10, 2008, the Company, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries entered into ten year agreements with Magellan Pipeline Company LP ("Magellan") that will allow for the transportation of an additional 20,000 barrels per day of refined fuels from the Company's Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the storage of refined fuels on the Magellan system. CRRM commenced usage of the capacity lease in December 2009 and the storage of refined fuels commenced in April 2010. Expenses associated with this agreement included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, totaled $0.7 million, $0.6 million and $60,000, respectively.

CRNF entered into a sales agreement with Cominco Fertilizer Partnership on November 20, 2007 to purchase equipment and materials which comprise a nitric acid plant. CRNF's obligation related to the execution of the agreement in 2007 for the purchase of the assets was approximately $3.5 million. On May 25, 2009, CRNF and Cominco amended the contract increasing the liability to approximately $4.3 million, of which approximately $2.3 million has been paid. In consideration of the increased liability, the timeline for removal of the equipment and payment schedule was extended. The amendment sets forth payment milestones based upon the timing of removal of identified assets. The balance of the assets purchased is now anticipated to be removed during the first quarter of 2012. Additionally, as of December 31, 2011, approximately $2.9 million was accrued for the dismantling and removal of the unit. As of December 31, 2011, the Partnership had accrued a total of $4.9 million with respect to the nitric acid plant and the related dismantling obligation, which was included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. The related asset amounts are included in construction-in-progress at December 31, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, the Company consummated the Wynnewood Acquisition, which resulted in the assumption of certain agreements. The Company assumed a throughput and deficiency agreement with Excel Pipeline LLC that expires in 2020. Under the agreement, the Company is obligated to pay a tariff fee on the minimum daily volume of crude oil or else pay for any deficiencies. Expenses associated with the throughput and deficiency agreement are estimated to be approximately $4.0 million per year.

From time to time, the Company is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under, "Environmental, Health, and Safety ("EHS") Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that management's estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate.

Samson Resources Company, Samson Lone Star, LLC and Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC (together, "Samson") filed fifteen lawsuits in federal and state courts in Oklahoma and two lawsuits in state courts in New Mexico against CRRM and other defendants between March 2009 and July 2009. In addition, in May 2010, separate groups of plaintiffs (the "Anstine and Arrow cases") filed two lawsuits against CRRM and other defendants in state court in Oklahoma and Kansas. All of the lawsuits filed in state court were removed to federal court. All of the lawsuits (except for the New Mexico suits, which remained in federal court in New Mexico) were then transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where the Sem Group bankruptcy resides. In March 2011, CRRM was dismissed without prejudice from the New Mexico suits. In March 2011, CRRM was dismissed without prejudice from the New Mexico suits. All of the lawsuits allege that Samson or other respective plaintiffs sold crude oil to a group of companies, which generally are known as SemCrude or SemGroup (collectively, "Sem"), which later declared bankruptcy and that Sem has not paid such plaintiffs for all of the crude oil purchased from Sem. The Samson lawsuits further allege that Sem sold some of the crude oil purchased from Samson to J. Aron & Company ("J. Aron") and that J. Aron sold some of this crude oil to CRRM. All of the lawsuits seek the same remedy, the imposition of a trust, an accounting and the return of crude oil or the proceeds therefrom. The amount of the plaintiffs' alleged claims is unknown since the price and amount of crude oil sold by the plaintiffs and eventually received by CRRM through Sem and J. Aron, if any, is unknown. CRRM timely paid for all crude oil purchased from J. Aron. On January 26, 2011, CRRM and J. Aron entered into an agreement whereby J. Aron agreed to indemnify and defend CRRM from any damage, out-of-pocket expense or loss in connection with any crude oil involved in the lawsuits which CRRM purchased through J. Aron, and J. Aron agreed to reimburse CRRM's prior attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the lawsuits. Samson and CRRM have entered a stipulation of dismissal with respect to all of the Samson cases and the Samson cases were dismissed with prejudice on February 8, 2012. The dismissal does not pertain to the Anstine and Arrow cases.

CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant and classified the nitrogen fertilizer plant as almost entirely real property instead of almost entirely personal property. The reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of approximately $10.7 million per year for the years ended December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009, $11.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. CRNF does not agree with the county's classification of its nitrogen fertilizer plant and has been disputing it before the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"). However, CRNF has fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and has fully accrued such amounts for the year ended December 31, 2011. The first payment in respect of CRNF's 2011 property taxes was paid in December 2011 and the second payment will be made in May 2012. This property tax expense is reflected as a direct operating expense in our financial results. In January 2012 COTA issued a ruling indicating that the assessment in 2008 of CRNF's fertilizer plant as almost entirely real property instead of almost entirely personal property was appropriate. CRNF disagrees with the ruling and filed a petition for reconsideration with COTA (which was denied) and plans to file an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. CRNF is also protesting the valuation of the CRNF fertilizer plant for tax years 2009 through 2011, which cases remain pending before COTA. If CRNF is successful in having the nitrogen fertilizer plant reclassified as personal property, in whole or in part, then a portion of the accrued and paid expenses would be refunded to CRNF, which could have a material positive effect on CRNF's and the Company's results of operations. If CRNF is not successful in having the nitrogen fertilizer plant reclassified as personal property, in whole or in part, then CRNF expects that it will continue to pay property taxes at elevated rates.

On July 25, 2011, Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC ("MAPL") filed an application with the Kansas Corporation Commission ("KCC") for the purpose of establishing rates ("New Rates") effective October 1, 2011 for pipeline transportation service on MAPL's liquids pipelines running between Conway, Kansas and Coffeyville, Kansas ("Inbound Line") and between Coffeyville, Kansas and El Dorado, Kansas ("Outbound Line"). CRRM currently ships refined fuels on the Outbound Line pursuant to transportation rates established by a pipeline capacity lease with MAPL which expired September 30, 2011 and CRRM currently ships natural gas liquids on the Inbound Line pursuant to a pipeage contract which also expired September 30, 2011. Although CRRM intends to vigorously contest the New Rates at the KCC, if MAPL is successful in obtaining the entirety of its proposed rate increase, under CRRM's historic pipeline usage patterns, the New Rates would result in a total annual increase of approximately $14.75 million for CRRM's use of the Inbound and the Outbound Lines. On September 30, 2011, the KCC issued an order continuing, on an interim basis, the existing rates for the Inbound Line and the Outbound Line from October 1, 2011 until the KCC issues its final rate order in the second quarter of 2012. The interim rates are subject to a true-up based upon the difference, if any, between the interim rates and the final rates approved by the KCC. In addition, on September 21, 2011, MAPL filed an application with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") for a rate increase on the Outbound Line with respect to shipments with an interstate destination. On October 28, 2011 FERC issued an order allowing MAPL to place its increased rate into effect October 1, 2011 with respect to interstate shipments, subject to refund based on the final outcome of the FERC proceedings. Historically, the majority of CRRM's shipments on the Outbound Line are to Kansas intrastate destinations and therefore, are subject to KCC and not FERC rate regulation.

Crude oil was discharged from the Company's Coffeyville refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. In connection with the discharge, the Company received in May 2008, notices of claims from sixteen private claimants under the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA") in an aggregate amount of approximately $4.4 million (plus punitive damages). In August 2008, those claimants filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita (the "Angleton Case"). In October 2009 and June 2010, companion cases to the Angleton Case were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita, seeking a total of approximately $3.2 million (plus punitive damages) for three additional plaintiffs as a result of the July 1, 2007 crude oil discharge. The Company has settled all of the claims with the plaintiffs from the Angleton Case and has settled all of the claims except for one of the plaintiffs from the companion cases. The settlements did not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. The Company believes that the resolution of the remaining claim will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.

As a result of the crude oil discharge that occurred on July 1, 2007, the Company entered into an administrative order on consent (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on July 10, 2007. As set forth in the Consent Order, the EPA concluded that the discharge of crude oil from the Company's Coffeyville refinery caused an imminent and substantial threat to the public health and welfare. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Company agreed to perform specified remedial actions to respond to the discharge of crude oil from the Company's refinery. The substantial majority of all required remedial actions were completed by January 31, 2009. The Company prepared and provided its final report to the EPA in January 2011 to satisfy the final requirement of the Consent Order. In April 2011, the EPA provided the Company with a notice of completion indicating that the Company has no continuing obligations under the Consent Order, while reserving its rights to recover oversight costs and penalties.

On October 25, 2010, the Company received a letter from the United States Coast Guard on behalf of the EPA seeking approximately $1.8 million in oversight cost reimbursement. The Company 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 (i) recovery from CRRM of EPA's oversight costs, (ii) a civil penalty under the Clean Water Act (as amended by the OPA) and (iii) recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program ("RMP"). (See "Environmental, Health and Safety ("EHS") Matters" below.)

The Company is seeking insurance coverage for this release and for the ultimate costs for remediation and third-party property damage claims. On July 10, 2008, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against certain of the Company'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. Although the Court has now issued summary judgment opinions that eliminate the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses, the Company cannot be certain of the ultimate amount or timing of such recovery because of the difficulty inherent in projecting the ultimate resolution of the Company's claims. The Company has received $25 million of insurance proceeds under its primary environmental liability insurance policy which constitutes full payment to the Company of the primary pollution liability policy limit.

The lawsuit with the insurance carriers under the environmental policies remains the only unsettled lawsuit with the insurance carriers.

CRRM, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT"), Wynnewood Refining Company LLC ("WRC"), all of which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of CVR, and CRNF are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local EHS rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and 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.

CRRM and CRT have agreed to perform corrective actions at the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the Phillipsburg, Kansas terminal facility, pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") to address historical contamination by the prior owners (RCRA Docket No. VII-94-H-0020 and Docket No. VII-95-H-011, respectively). As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, environmental accruals of approximately $1.9 million and $4.1 million, respectively, were reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders, for which approximately $0.5 million and $1.5 million, respectively, are included in other current liabilities. The Company's accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment costs through 2031, for which the scope of remediation was arranged with the EPA, and were discounted at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of approximately $0.9 million and $0.9 million for two landfills at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The estimated future payments for these required obligations are as follows:

Year Ending December 31,	Amount

	(in thousands)
2012	$	493
2013		166
2014		166
2015		166
2016		109
Thereafter		1,077

Undiscounted total		2,177
Less amounts representing interest at 1.69%		225

Accrued environmental liabilities at December 31, 2011	$	1,952

Management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate.

In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II ("MSAT II") rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. CRRM and WRC are considered to be small refiners under the MSAT II rule and compliance with the rule is extended until 2015 for small refiners. Capital expenditures to comply with the rule are expected to be approximately $10.0 million.

CRRM's refinery is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") which requires refiners to blend "renewable fuels" in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable energy credits in lieu of blending. The EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 for the forthcoming year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. Thus, in 2011, about 8% of all fuel used will be "renewable fuel." In 2012, the EPA has proposed to raise the renewable fuel percentage standards to about 9%. Due to mandates in the RFS requiring increasing volumes of renewable fuels to replace petroleum products in the U.S. motor fuel market, there may be a decrease in demand for petroleum products. In addition, CRRM may be impacted by increased capital expenses and production costs to accommodate mandated renewable fuel volumes to the extent that these increased costs cannot be passed on to the consumers. CRRM's small refiner status under the original RFS expired on December 31, 2010. Beginning on January 1, 2011, CRRM was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase renewable energy credits, known as Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) in lieu of blending. For the year ended December 31, 2011, CRRM incurred approximately $19.0 million of expense associated with the purchasing RINs which was included in cost of product sold in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. To achieve compliance with the renewable fuel standard for the remainder of 2011, CRRM is able to blend a small amount of ethanol into gasoline sold at its refinery loading rack, but otherwise will have to purchase RINs to comply with the rule. CRRM has requested "hardship relief" from EPA based on the disproportionate economic impact of the rule on CRRM, but the EPA denied CRRM's request on February 17, 2012. CRRM may appeal the denial of its hardship petition.

WRC's refinery is a small refinery under the RFS and has received a two year extension of time to comply. Therefore, WRC will have to begin complying with the RFS in 2013 unless a further extension is requested and granted.

In March 2004, CRRM and CRT entered into a Consent Decree (the "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 ("Farmland") prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 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 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed cleanup obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. The remaining costs of complying with the Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $49 million, of which approximately $47 million is expected to be capital expenditures which does not include the cleanup obligations for historic contamination at the site that are being addressed pursuant to administrative orders issued under RCRA. To date, CRRM and CRT have materially complied with the Consent Decree. On June 30, 2009, CRRM submitted a force majeure notice to the EPA and KDHE in which CRRM indicated that it may be unable to meet the Consent Decree's January 1, 2011 deadline related to the installation of controls on the FCCU to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides because of delays caused by the June/July 2007 flood. In February 2010, CRRM and the EPA agreed to a fifteen month extension of the January 1, 2011, deadline for the installation of controls which was approved by the Court as a material modification to the existing Consent Decree. Pursuant to this agreement, CRRM agreed to offset any incremental emissions resulting from the delay by providing additional controls to existing emission sources over a set timeframe.

In the meantime, CRRM has been negotiating with the EPA and KDHE to replace the current Consent Decree, including the fifteen month extension, with a global settlement under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative. Over the course of the last decade, the EPA has embarked on a national Petroleum Refining Initiative alleging 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 entering into consent decrees imposing civil penalties and requiring the installation of expenditures for 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. The Consent Decree covers some, but not all, of the "marquee" issues. The Company has been negotiating with the EPA to expand the 2004 Consent Decree obligations to include all of the "marquee" issues under the Petroleum Refining Initiative, and have reached an agreement which includes an agreement to further extend the deadline for the installation of controls on the FCCU. Under the global settlement, the Company will be required to pay a civil penalty, but the incremental capital expenditures would not be material and would be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over a five to seven year timeframe. The new Consent Decree is awaiting EPA final approval after which it will be lodged with the court and then submitted for public notice and comment before it becomes final.

On February 24, 2010, the Company received a letter from the DOJ on behalf of the EPA seeking an approximately $0.9 million civil penalty related to alleged late and incomplete reporting of air releases in violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ("EPCRA"). The Company has reached an agreement with EPA to resolve these claims. The resolution will be included in the Consent Decree under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative described in the previous paragraph.

The EPA has investigated CRRM's operation for compliance with the RMP. On September 23, 2011, the 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 (in addition to the matters described above, see "Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance") seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the RMP.

From time to time, the EPA has conducted inspections and issued information requests to CRNF with respect to the Company's compliance with the RMP and the release reporting requirements under CERCLA and the EPCRA. These previous investigations have resulted in the issuance of preliminary findings regarding CRNF's compliance status. In the fourth quarter of 2010, following CRNF's reported release of ammonia from its cooling water system and the rupture of its UAN vessel (which released ammonia and other regulated substances), the EPA conducted its most recent inspection and issued an additional request for information to CRNF. The EPA has not made any formal claims against the Company and the Company has not accrued for any liability associated with the investigations or releases.

Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, capital expenditures were approximately $7.6 million, $13.7 million and $24.4 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 the business, financial condition, or results of operations.