XML 36 R23.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 | (13) Commitments and Contingencies The minimum required payments for CVR's operating lease agreements and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
Year Ending December 31, | Operating Leases |  | Unconditional Purchase Obligations(1)
| (in millions)
2016 | $ | 8.0 |  |  | $ | 141.0 |
2017 | 5.5 |  |  | 125.6 |
2018 | 3.9 |  |  | 124.3 |
2019 | 2.1 |  |  | 123.5 |
2020 | 1.5 |  |  | 107.8 |
Thereafter | 2.5 |  |  | 727.4 |
| $ | 23.5 |  |  | $ | 1,349.6 |
_______________________________________
(1) | This amount includes approximately $781.5 million payable ratably over fifteen years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between Coffeyville Resources Refining Marketing, LLC ("CRRM") and each of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline 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 twenty 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 railcars and real properties, under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, lease expense totaled approximately $8.7 million, $9.3 million and $9.4 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. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, total expense of $135.9 million, $137.8 million and $126.1 million, respectively, was incurred related to long-term commitments. 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 the Refining Partnership'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, 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 will prove to be accurate. Proxy Matters 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 the 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. On October 27, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to DB, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal. 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 the consolidated financial statements. Rentech Nitrogen Mergers Litigation 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Property Tax Matter 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 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, $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 and $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 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 $10.7 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. SEC Matter The SEC is conducting an investigation in connection with the Company's disclosures following the announcement of a tender offer for the Company's stock initiated in February 2012. The Company is cooperating with the SEC and has produced, at the SEC's request, documents pertaining to the tender offer and the Company's 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 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 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 was 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, 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. The Court issued summary judgment opinions that eliminated the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses. CRRM has received $25.0 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 $31.3 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, $27.3 million were recorded as a flood insurance recovery in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The remaining $4.0 million of settlement proceeds reduced CVR Refining's $4.0 million 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 ("EHS") Matters The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses 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, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal ("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 the 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 the Company'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. 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 of December 31, 2015 and 2014, environmental accruals of approximately $3.6 million and $1.1 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, for which approximately $2.0 million and $0.2 million, respectively, are included in other current liabilities. 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, respectively. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of approximately $0.4 million and $0.9 million for two landfills at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The estimated future payments for these required obligations are as follows:
Year Ending December 31, | Amount
| (in millions)
2016 | $ | 2.0 |
2017 | 0.5 |
2018 | 0.5 |
2019 | 0.1 |
2020 | 0.1 |
Thereafter | 0.5 |
Undiscounted total | 3.7 |
Less amounts representing interest at 1.87% | 0.1 |
Accrued environmental liabilities at December 31, 2015 | $ | 3.6 |
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. Mobile Source Air Toxic II Emissions 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 of approximately $48.3 million and $89.0 million, excluding capitalized interest, by CRRM and WRC, respectively. Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards 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 the refineries will require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard. Renewable Fuel Standards CVR Refining is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") which requires refiners to either blend "renewable fuels" in 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 approximately $123.9 million, $127.2 million and $180.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, CVR Refining's biofuel blending obligation was approximately $9.5 million and $52.3 million, respectively, which is recorded in other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The price of RINs has been extremely volatile and has increased over the last year. The future cost of RINs for the petroleum business 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 its refineries and downstream terminals, all of which can vary significantly from period to period. Coffeyville Second Consent Decree 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 ("SO 2"), 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 approximately $0.7 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 $44.0 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 a several year timeframe. 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. Wynnewood Clean Air Act Compliance 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 $3.0 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. RCRA Compliance Matters 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 $35.7 million, $100.6 million and $111.3 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. Wynnewood Refinery Incident 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. Affiliate Pension Obligations Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns approximately 82% of the Company’s capital stock. 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 CVR Energy by Mr. Icahn's affiliates, the Company is subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. Two such entities, ACF Industries LLC ("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. If the ACF and Federal-Mogul plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be collectively underfunded by approximately $589.2 million and $473.8 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by Mr. Icahn's affiliates based on information from 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, CVR Energy 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 their respective pension plans. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group that includes CVR Energy may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded, and the Company would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the ACF and Federal-Mogul pension plans requires such entities to notify the PBGC of certain "reportable events," such as if CVR Energy were to cease to be a member of the controlled group, or if CVR Energy makes certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause the Company to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events. Based on the contingent nature of potential exposure related to these affiliate pension obligations, no liability has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements.

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