Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(11) Commitments and Contingencies

Supply Commitments

The minimum required payments for unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:


(in millions)	Unconditional Purchase Obligations
Year Ended December 31,
2022	$	136
2023	85
2024	82
2025	82
2026	77
Thereafter	252
	$	714

Supply Commitments - The Company is a party to various supply agreements with both related and third parties which commit the Company to purchase minimum volumes of crude oil, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, pet coke, and natural gas to run

its facilities’ operations. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, amounts purchased under these supply agreements totaled approximately $176 million, $153 million, and $167 million, respectively.

Crude Oil Supply Agreement

Effective on August 4, 2021, an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Refining entered into the Second Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the “2021 Supply Agreement”) with Vitol Inc. (“Vitol”) which superseded, in its entirety, the August 31, 2012 Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the “2012 Supply Agreement” and collectively with the 2021 Supply Agreement, the “Crude Oil Supply Agreement”) between the parties. The 2021 Supply Agreement is on substantially similar terms as the 2012 Supply Agreement, other than revisions to certain inventory turnover and insurance provisions. Under the Crude Oil Supply Agreement, Vitol supplies the Petroleum Segment with crude oil and intermediation logistics helping to reduce the amount of inventory held at certain locations and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. Volumes contracted under the Crude Oil Supply Agreement, as a percentage of the total crude oil purchases (in barrels), was approximately 42%, 33%, and 36% for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, respectively. The Crude Oil Supply Agreement, which currently extends through December 31, 2022, automatically renews 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.

Contingencies

The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York contacted CVR Energy in September 2017 seeking production of information pertaining to CVR Refining’s, CVR Energy’s and Mr. Carl C. Icahn’s activities relating to the RFS and Mr. Icahn’s former role as an advisor to former President Trump. CVR Energy cooperated with the request and provided information in response to the subpoena. The U.S. Attorney’s office has not made any claims or allegations against CVR Energy or Mr. Icahn. CVR Energy believes it maintains a strong compliance program and, while no assurances can be made, CVR Energy does not believe this inquiry will have a material impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Call Option Lawsuits - In 2019, the Company, CVR Refining and its general partner, CVR Refining Holdings, IEP, and certain directors and affiliates (collectively, the “Call Defendants”) were named in at least one of nine now consolidated lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported former unitholders of CVR Refining, on behalf of themselves and an alleged class of similarly situated unitholders relating to the Company’s exercise of the call option (“Call Option”) under the CVR Refining Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership assigned to it by CVR Refining’s general partner (collectively, the “Call Option Lawsuits”). The Call Option Lawsuits primarily allege breach of contract, tortious interference and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seek monetary damages and attorneys’ fees, among other remedies. In January 2020, the court dismissed CVR Holdings and certain former directors of CVR Refining’s general partner from the Call Option Lawsuits, though permitted some or all of the claims to proceed against each remaining defendant. Trial of the Call Option Lawsuits concluded in July 2021, and the parties are currently in post-trial proceedings. The Company believes the Call Option Lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The plaintiffs filed their Opening Post-Trial Brief on December 22, 2021, now quantifying alleged damages in excess of $300 million; the Call Defendants strongly dispute the plaintiffs’ claims and are preparing responsive briefings. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine at this time the outcome of the Call Option Lawsuits, including whether such outcome would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, while we firmly believe this matter is without merit, if it is concluded in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Call Defendants are also parties to two lawsuits relating to insurance coverage for the Call Option Lawsuits, one filed on January 27, 2021, in the 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas by the Call Defendants’ primary and excess insurers (the “Insurers”) seeking a declaratory judgment determining that they owe no indemnity coverage for the Call Option Lawsuits in relation to insurance policies that have coverage limits of $50 million, and another filed on January 30, 2022 in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware by the Call Defendants against the Insurers for anticipatory breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the “Delaware Coverage Case”). On November 23, 2021, the court in the Delaware Coverage Case granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Call Defendants relating to the amount of the deductible. As both lawsuits are in their early stages, the Company cannot determine at this time the outcome of these lawsuits, including whether the outcome would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Renewable Fuel Standards - The Company’s Petroleum Segment is subject to the RFS, implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), which requires refiners to either blend renewable fuels into their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, in lieu of blending. The Petroleum Segment is not able to blend the substantial majority of its transportation fuels and must either purchase RINs on the open market or obtain waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels, or other exemptions from the EPA, in order to comply with the RFS.

For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, the Company recognized an expense of approximately $435 million, $190 million, and $43 million, respectively, for the Petroleum Segment’s compliance with the RFS (based on the 2020 renewable volume obligation (“RVO”) and proposed preliminary 2021 RVO range, for the respective periods, excluding the impacts of any exemptions or waivers to which the Petroleum Segment may be entitled). The recognized amounts are included within Cost of materials and other in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent costs to comply with the RFS obligation through purchasing of RINs not otherwise reduced by blending of ethanol or biodiesel. At each reporting period, to the extent RINs purchased and generated through blending are less than the RFS obligation (excluding the impact of exemptions or waivers to which the Petroleum Segment may be entitled), the remaining position is marked-to-market using RIN market prices at period end. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Petroleum Segment’s RFS position was approximately $494 million and $214 million, respectively, which is recorded in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

RFS Disputes - On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Supreme Court”) overturned a decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (“10th Circuit”) vacating three small refinery exemptions (“SREs”) under the RFS, including one issued to the Wynnewood Refinery for 2017, to the extent such SREs were vacated based on failure to have continuously received an SRE in all applicable preceding years. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) notified WRC that it would reconsider WRC’s 2017 SRE on other grounds referenced in the 10th Circuit decision. On July 20, 2021, after remand from the Supreme Court, the 10th Circuit vacated its prior judgment, recalled its previous mandate denying WRC’s 2017 SRE, entered a new judgment and issued a new mandate transferring jurisdiction back to the EPA. On August 26, 2021, the EPA filed a Motion for Clarification asking the 10th Circuit whether the alternative holdings that supported the 10th Circuit’s prior judgment remain in effect and whether the new mandate returns the agency actions back to the EPA, which Motion for Clarification was denied. On September 15, 2021, WRC advised the EPA it considered its 2017 SRE intact and demanded that the EPA return the status of WRC’s 2017 SRE to “granted.” The EPA has not yet responded to WRC’s demand. Given the EPA’s failure to respond, we cannot currently estimate the outcome, impact or timing of resolution of this matter.

WRC and CRRM are also involved in or expected to be involved in several lawsuits relating to the RFS, including a lawsuit filed in 2019 in the D.C. Circuit by four ethanol and biofuels trade associations against the EPA claiming the EPA exceeded its authority in granting SREs for the 2018 compliance year, including the 2018 SRE granted to WRC’s Wynnewood Refinery (the “2018 SRE Lawsuit”), which 2018 SRE petitions were remanded by the court back to the EPA on December 8, 2021, with instructions to act on such petitions by April 7, 2022; a lawsuit by WRC against the EPA relating to damages sustained by WRC as a result of the EPA’s failure to timely issue WRC’s 2018 SRE (the “WRC 2018 SRE Lawsuit”); and a Petition for Review of the EPA’s February 2, 2022, final rule changing compliance deadlines under the RFS filed by WRC and CRRM with the D.C. Circuit on February 4, 2022 (the “Deadline Lawsuit”). The Company anticipates additional litigation to be filed in the future relating to the RFS, including one or more lawsuits by WRC against the EPA should it finalize the position set forth in its Proposed RFS Small Refinery Exemption Decision dated December 7, 2021 (the “Proposed Denial”), in which the EPA announced its intention to change its statutory interpretation of the CAA and deny 65 pending SRE petitions, including those submitted by WRC for 2019, 2020, and 2021, through which the Proposed Denial by the EPA has informed WRC it intends to also apply to deny all 2018 SREs previously approved by the EPA, including for WRC’s Wynnewood Refinery. These matters are in their early stages, and the Company cannot determine at this time the outcomes of these matters, including whether such outcomes would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Environmental, Health, and Safety (“EHS”) Matters

Clean Air Act Matter - On August 21, 2018, CRRM received a letter from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the EPA and KDHE alleging violations of the CAA and a 2012 Consent Decree (the “CD”) between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC (“CRRM”), the United States (on behalf of the EPA) and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) at CRRM’s Coffeyville refinery, primarily relating to flares. In June 2020, a tolling agreement between the parties relating to such allegations expired, and the DOJ and KDHE sent demand letters relating to the

allegations (the “Stipulated Claims”) and seeking stipulated penalties under the CD. In February 2021, the DOJ and KDHE sent CRRM a statement of position under the CD regarding its demand for Stipulated Claims. As CRRM disputes most claims asserted by the government, in accordance with the CD, CRRM deposited funds into a commercial escrow account pending resolution of disputed claims. The escrowed funds are legally restricted for use and are included within Prepaid expenses and other current assets on the consolidated balance sheets. In April 2021, CRRM filed a petition for judicial review of the Stipulated Claims with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (“D. Kan.”), in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the CD. On September 23, 2021, the court ordered briefing on CRRM’s petition, which was completed in December 2021. Separately, in December 2020, the DOJ and KDHE filed a supplement complaint in the D. Kan asserting nine counts for alleged violations of the CAA, the Kansas State Implementation Plan and Kansas law seeking civil penalties, injunctive and related relief, which they sought leave to amend on February 10, 2022, to add an additional eight counts under Part 63 of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries Subparts CC and R (“NESHAP”), Kansas law, and CRRM’s permits relating to flares, heaters, and related matters (collectively, the “Statutory Claims”). In March 2021, CRRM filed a partial motion to dismiss certain Statutory Claims, which is still pending with the D. Kan. Negotiations relating to the Stipulated Claims and the Statutory Claims are ongoing and the Company cannot determine at this time the outcome of these matters, including whether such outcome, or any subsequent enforcement or litigation relating thereto would have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Environmental Remediation - As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, environmental accruals representing estimated costs for future remediation efforts at certain Petroleum Segment sites totaled approximately $12 million and $11 million, respectively. These amounts are reflected in Other current liabilities or Other long-term liabilities depending on when the Company expects to expend such amounts.