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

	Operating Leases		Unconditional Purchase Obligations(1)

	(in thousands)
Six months ending December 31, 2012	$	5,065	$	63,994
Year ending December 31, 2013		9,093		126,619
Year ending December 31, 2014		7,145		113,593
Year ending December 31, 2015		5,586		103,115
Year ending December 31, 2016		4,664		103,013
Thereafter		8,563		457,896

	$	40,116	$	968,230

(1): This amount includes approximately $497.8 million payable ratably over nine years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP ("TransCanada"). Under the agreements, CRRM will receive transportation for at least 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil with a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma for a term of ten years on TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system. CRRM began receiving crude oil under the agreements in the first quarter of 2011.

CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, lease expense totaled approximately $1.4 million and $1.3 million, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, lease expense totaled approximately $2.7 million and $2.6 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.

CVR Partners 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.

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 condensed 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 filed two lawsuits (the "Anstine and Arrow cases") 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. 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 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.

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 approximately $18.5 million in 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. CVR believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the suit. This amount has been fully accrued as of June 30, 2012.

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, or COTA. However, CRNF has fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and has estimated and accrued for property tax for the first six months of 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 then filed an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. CRNF is also appealing the valuation of the CRNF fertilizer plant for tax years 2009 through 2012, 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 property tax expenses would be refunded to CRNF, which could have a material positive effect on our 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. If MAPL were 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 resolution of the matter. 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. On April 3, 2012, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement which resolved the rate dispute both at the KCC and at FERC. Among other provisions, the Settlement Agreement provides for pipeage contracts to be entered into between the parties with rates ("Settlement Rates") to be established for an initial one year period. The Settlement Rates consist of two components, a base rate and a pipeline integrity cost recovery rate along with an annual take or pay minimum transportation quantity. The Settlement Rate on the Inbound Line was effective April 1, 2012 and the Settlement Rate on the Outbound Line was effective June 1, 2012. Prior to the end of the initial one year term of the pipeage contracts, and prior to the end of each annual period thereafter until the tenth anniversary of each of the two pipeage contracts, MAPL will provide its estimate of pipeline integrity costs for the upcoming annual period and CRRM may either agree to pay a rate for such upcoming annual period which includes a recovery rate component sufficient to collect such pipeline integrity costs for such upcoming annual period subject to true-up to actual costs at the end of the annual period. FERC rates will be the same as the KCC rates.

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 condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company believes that the resolution of the remaining claim will not have a material adverse effect on the condensed 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 (the "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 the EPA's oversight costs under the OPA, (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 has reached an agreement in principle with the DOJ to resolve the DOJ's claims. The Company anticipates that civil penalties associated with the proceeding will exceed $100,000; however, the Company does not anticipate that civil penalties or any other costs associated with the proceeding will be material. The discovery in the lawsuit is temporarily stayed while the parties attempt to finalize that agreement in a consent decree.

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 related to these events.

CRRM, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT"), and 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. 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 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA") generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and cleanup costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States.

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-0020 and Docket No. VII-95-H-011, respectively). As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, environmental accruals of approximately $1.8 million and $1.9 million, respectively, were reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders, for which approximately $0.4 million and $0.5 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 June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of approximately $0.9 million and $0.9 million for two landfills at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The estimated future payments for these required obligations are as follows:

Year Ending December 31,	Amount

	(in thousands)
Six months ending December 31, 2012	$	281
2013		179
2014		162
2015		163
2016		106
Thereafter		1,059

Undiscounted total		1,950
Less amounts representing interest at 1.58%		198

Accrued environmental liabilities at June 30, 2012	$	1,752

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.

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 on the Company's business of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our 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.

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. With the change of control by Icahn Enterprises, the MSATII projects have been accelerated by three months due to the loss of Small Refiner status. Capital expenditures to comply with the rule are expected to be approximately $45.0 million for CRRM and $49.0 million for WRC.

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. In 2011, about 8% of all fuel used was required to be "renewable fuel." For 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. To achieve compliance with the renewable fuel standard for the remainder of 2012, 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 requested "hardship relief" (an extension of the compliance deadline) from the EPA based on the disproportionate economic impact of the rule on CRRM, but the EPA denied CRRM's request on February 17, 2012.

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 beginning in 2013 unless a further extension is requested and granted.

The EPA is expected to propose "Tier 3" gasoline sulfur standards in 2012. If the EPA were to propose a standard at the level recently being discussed in the pre-proposal phase by the EPA, CRRM will need to make modifications to its equipment in order to meet the anticipated new standard. It is not anticipated that the Wynnewood refinery would require additional capital to meet the anticipated new standard. The Company does not believe that costs associated with the EPA's proposed Tier 3 rule will be material.

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 cleanup obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. 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 2004 Consent Decree's January 1, 2011 deadline for 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 FCCU controls which was approved by the Court as a "First Material Modification" to the 2004 Consent Decree. In the First Material Modification, CRRM agreed to offset any incremental emissions resulting from the delay by installing additional controls to existing emission sources over a set timeframe.

In March 2012, CRRM entered into a "Second Consent Decree" with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree (other than the RCRA provisions) and the First Material Modification. 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. The 2004 Consent Decree covered some, but not all, of the "marquee" issues. The Second Consent Decree covers all of the marquee issues. Under the Second Consent Decree, the Company will be required to pay a civil penalty of approximately $0.7 million and 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 Court on April 19, 2012.

WRC's refinery 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 the ODEQ about doing so. Instead, WRC entered into a Consent Order with the ODEQ in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses some, but not all, of the traditional marquee issues under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative and addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues that are generally beyond the scope of a traditional global settlement. 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. The costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order, other than costs associated with a planned turnaround, are expected to be approximately $1.5 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a broad release from liability from ODEQ. The EPA may later request that WRC enter into a global settlement which, if WRC agreed to do so, would necessitate the payment of a civil penalty and the installation of additional controls.

On February 24, 2010, CRRM 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 was included in the Second Consent Decree described above pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay an immaterial civil penalty.

The EPA has investigated CRRM's operation for compliance with the Clean Air Act's 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. The Company anticipates that civil penalties associated with the proceeding will exceed $100,000; however, the Company does not anticipate that civil penalties or any other costs associated with the proceeding will be material. The discovery in the lawsuit is temporarily stayed while the parties attempt to finalize that agreement in a consent decree.

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.

WRC has entered into a series of Clean Water Act consent orders with ODEQ. The latest Consent Order (the "CWA Consent Order"), which supersedes other consent orders, became effective in September 2011. The CWA Consent Order addresses alleged noncompliance by WRC with its OPDES permit limits. The CWA Consent Order requires WRC to take corrective action steps, including undertaking studies to determine whether the Wynnewood refinery's wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient. The Wynnewood refinery may need to install additional controls or make operational changes to satisfy the requirements of the CWA Consent Order. The cost of additional controls, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience with wastewater treatment and controls, we do not believe that the costs of the potential corrective actions would be material.

Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, capital expenditures were approximately $8.1 million and $0.9 million, respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, capital expenditures were approximately $11.0 million and $2.5 million, respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believes 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.