e10vq

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q


þ		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005


o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ____________

Commission File Number
000-50056

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		05-0527861
(State or other jurisdiction of		(IRS Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)

4200 Stone Road
Kilgore, Texas 75662
(Address of principal executive offices, zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (903) 983-6200

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes þ No o

Indicated by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes þ No o

The number of the registrant’s Common Units outstanding at August 2, 2005 was 4,222,500. The number of the registrant’s subordinated units outstanding at August 2, 2005 was 4,253,362.

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in thousands)


	June 30,			December 31,
	2005			2004
	(Unaudited)			(Audited)
Assets

Cash	$	2,248		$	3,184
Accounts and other receivables, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $347 and $427		31,267			43,526
Product exchange receivables		397			50
Inventories		25,514			23,165
Due from affiliates		3,638			1,892
Other current assets		742			724

Total current assets		63,806			72,541


Property, plant, and equipment, at cost		158,666			148,241
Accumulated depreciation		(43,645	)		(38,472	)

Property, plant and equipment, net		115,021			109,769


Goodwill		6,950			2,922
Other assets, net		4,102			3,100

	$	189,879		$	188,332

Liabilities and Partners’ Capital

Trade and other accounts payable	$	31,684		$	26,537
Product exchange payables		6,944			9,081
Due to affiliates		198			429
Other accrued liabilities		2,361			2,443

Total current liabilities		41,187			38,490


Long-term debt		74,500			73,000
Other long-term obligations		1,438			1,308

Total liabilities		117,125			112,798


Partners’ capital		72,754			75,534
Commitments and contingencies

	$	189,879		$	188,332

See accompanying notes to consolidated and condensed financial statements.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands, except per unit amounts)


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Revenues:
Terminalling	$	5,443		$	3,663		$	11,077		$	7,429
Marine transportation		9,582			8,737			18,056			16,685
Product sales:
LPG distribution		57,688			38,656			127,755			84,822
Sulfur		940			—			940			—
Fertilizer		8,862			8,165			18,415			17,381
Terminalling		2,381			2,032			4,793			4,004

		69,871			48,853			151,903			106,207

Total revenues		84,896			61,253			181,036			130,321

Costs and expenses:
Cost of products sold:
LPG distribution		56,412			37,826			124,047			82,770
Sulfur		699			—			699			—
Fertilizer		7,257			7,245			15,566			14,757
Terminalling		1,921			1,673			4,020			3,323

		66,289			46,744			144,332			100,850

Expenses:
Operating expenses		9,505			7,623			17,987			14,960
Selling, general and administrative		2,519			2,121			4,985			4,036
Depreciation and amortization		2,706			1,966			5,360			3,872

Total costs and expenses		81,019			58,454			172,664			123,718

Operating income		3,877			2,799			8,372			6,603


Other income (expense):
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities		120			362			195			891
Interest expense		(1,126	)		(758	)		(2,195	)		(1,462	)
Other, net		72			19			102			28

Total other income (expense)		(934	)		(377	)		(1,898	)		(543	)


Net income	$	2,943		$	2,422		$	6,474		$	6,060


General partner’s interest in net income	$	59		$	48		$	129		$	121
Limited partners’ interest in net income	$	2,884		$	2,374		$	6,345		$	5,939
Net income per limited partner unit	$	0.34		$	0.28		$	0.75		$	0.72
Weighted average limited partner units		8,475,862			8,475,862			8,475,862			8,221,851

See accompanying notes to consolidated and condensed financial statements.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands)


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005			2004
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income	$	6,474		$	6,060

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		5,360			3,872
Amortization of deferred debt issuance costs		251			483
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities		(195	)		(891	)

Change in current assets and liabilities, excluding effects of acquisitions and dispositions:

Accounts and other receivables		12,259			(468	)
Product exchange receivables		(347	)		1,689
Inventories		(1,962	)		3,755
Due from affiliates		(1,746	)		(2,529	)
Other current assets		(9	)		(509	)
Trade and other accounts payable		5,147			2,545
Product exchange payables		(2,254	)		(2,347	)
Due to affiliates		(231	)		(391	)
Other accrued liabilities		(82	)		192
Change in other non-current assets-net		(134	)		(41	)

Net cash provided by operating activities		22,531			11,420


Cash flows from investing activities:
Payments for property, plant and equipment		(5,174	)		(2,232	)
Acquisitions		(10,188	)		(26,733	)
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment		46			—
Distributions from unconsolidated partnership		—			1,188

Net cash used in investing activities		(15,316	)		(27,777	)


Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments of long-term debt		(10,400	)		(34,000	)
Proceeds from long-term debt		11,900			27,000
Cash distributions paid		(9,254	)		(8,373	)
Payments of debt issuance costs		(397	)		—
General partner contribution		—			754
Follow on offering		—			34,016

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(8,151	)		19,397


Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(936	)		3,040

Cash at beginning of period		3,184			2,270


Cash at end of period	$	2,248		$	5,310


Non-cash:
Financed portion of non-compete agreement	$	—		$	398

See accompanying notes to consolidated and condensed financial statements.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

1. Organization and Description of Business

Martin Midstream Partners L.P. (the “Partnership” or “we”) provides terminalling, marine transportation, distribution and midstream logistical services for producers and suppliers of hydrocarbon products and by-products, lubricants and other liquids. The Partnership also manufactures and markets sulfur-based fertilizers and related products and owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur L.P. (“CF Martin Sulphur”), which operates a sulfur terminalling, transportation and distribution business. On July 15, 2005 the Partnership acquired all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur, L.P., from CF Industries, Inc. and certain affiliates of Martin Resource Management Corporation. The Partnership operates primarily in the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Prior to November 6, 2002, the Partnership was an inactive indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Martin Resource Management Corporation (“MRMC”). In connection with the November 6, 2002 closing of the initial public offering of common units representing limited partner interests in the Partnership, MRMC and certain of its subsidiaries conveyed to the Partnership certain of their assets, liabilities and operations, in exchange for the following: (i) a 2% general partnership interest in the Partnership held by Martin Midstream GP LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MRMC (the “General Partner”), (ii) incentive distribution rights granted by the Partnership, and (iii) 4,253,362 subordinated units of the Partnership. The operations that were contributed to the Partnership relate to four primary lines of business: (1) terminalling; (2) marine transportation of hydrocarbon products and hydrocarbon by-products; (3) liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) marketing and distribution and (4) fertilizer manufacturing. Following the Partnership’s initial public offering, MRMC retained various assets, liabilities, and operations not related to the four lines of business noted above as well as certain assets, liabilities and operations within the LPG distribution and fertilizer manufacturing lines of business.

In April, 2005, the Partnership began another primary line of business for sulfur marketing and distribution with the acquisition of the operating assets of Bay Sulfur Company which includes a sulfur priller in Stockton, California. A second sulfur priller is under construction at our Neches facility in Beaumont, Texas. On July 15, 2005 the Partnership acquired all the outstanding partnership interests of CF Martin Sulfur, which will be included in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements and included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur line of business. Prior to the acquisition, the Partnership owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur. The sulfur segment will include the marketing, transportation, terminalling, storage, processing and distribution of molten and pelletized sulfur.

Hydrocarbon products and by-products are produced primarily by major and independent oil and gas companies who often turn to independent third parties for the transportation and disposition of these products. In addition to these major and independent oil and gas companies, the Partnership’s primary customers include independent refiners, large chemical companies, fertilizer manufacturers and other wholesale purchasers of hydrocarbon products and by-products.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

In addition to matters discussed below in this note, the Partnership’s significant accounting policies are detailed in the audited consolidated and combined financial statements and notes thereto in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 16, 2005.

(a) Principles of Presentation and Consolidation

The balance sheets as of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the statements of capital and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 are presented on a consolidated basis and include the operations of the Partnership and its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Martin Operating GP LLC and Martin Operating Partnership L.P.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Partnership’s audited consolidated and combined financial statements and notes thereto included in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005. The Partnership’s unaudited consolidated and condensed financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Form 10-Q and U.S.generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial reporting. Accordingly, these financial statements have been condensed and do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles for complete financial statements as are normally made in annual audited financial statements contained in the Partnership’s annual reports on Form 10-K. In the opinion of the management of the Partnership’s general partner, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Partnership’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the periods shown have been made. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. Results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the full year.

3. Acquisitions

(a) Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline Purchase

In January 2005, we acquired a liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) pipeline located in East Texas from an unrelated third party for $3.8 million. The purchase price included the value of the liquefied petroleum gas in the pipeline fill. The pipeline, which will be used by the Partnership to transport LPG for third parties as well as our own account, spans approximately 200 miles, running from Kilgore to Beaumont in Texas. The acquisition was financed through the Partnership’s revolving credit facility (See Note 10).

(b) Acquisition of Bay Sulfur Assets

On April 20, 2005, we completed the acquisition of the operating assets and sulfur inventories of Bay Sulfur Company located at the Port of Stockton, California, for $5.9 million which includes $4.0 million allocated to goodwill. Goodwill was recognized as a result of the total price paid for the business, and is supported by its historical cash flows. The remaining $1.9 million was allocated to property, plant and equipment ($1.4 million), a covenant not to compete ($0.1 million) and inventory and other current assets ($0.4 million). The assets acquired are used to process molten sulfur into pellets. This acquisition is reported in a new business segment described as “Sulfur”.

(c) Acquisition of 100% Interest in CF Martin Sulphur — Subsequent Event

On July 15, 2005, we acquired all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur from CF Industries, Inc. and certain affiliates of Martin Resource Management Corporation for $18.8 million. Prior to this transaction, the Partnership owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur, which was accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Subsequent to the aquisition, CF Martin Sulphur LP is a wholly-owned partnership which will be included in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements and included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur segment.

In connection with the acquisition, the Partnership assumed $9.4 million of indebtedness owed by CF Martin Sulphur and repaid $2.1 million of indebtedness owed by CF Martin Sulphur. The Partnership also pledged as security the equity interests in CF Martin Sulphur to the Partnership’s lenders under its current Credit Agreement. As part of this transaction, CF Industries, Inc. entered into a multi-year sulfur supply contract with the Partnership.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

4. Inventories

Components of inventories at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 were as follows:


	June 30,		December 31,
	2005		2004
Liquefied petroleum gas	$	15,124	$	14,168
Sulfur		1,085		—
Fertilizer — raw materials and packaging		3,872		2,147
Fertilizer — finished goods		2,357		4,014
Lubricants		2,194		1,959
Other		882		877

	$	25,514	$	23,165

5. Goodwill

The following information relates to goodwill balances as of the end of the periods presented:


	June 30,		December 31,
	2005		2004
Carrying amount of goodwill:
Marine transportation segment	$	2,026	$	2,026
Sulfur segment		4,029		—
LPG segment		80		80
Fertilizer segment		816		816

	$	6,951	$	2,922

6. CF Martin Sulphur L.P.

The following table sets forth CF Martin Sulphur’s summarized net income information for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. Prior to July 15, 2005, the Partnership owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur, which was accounted for using the equity method of accounting. The difference in the original carrying value (deferred credit of $3,006) of the Partnership’s predecessor’s investment in the unconsolidated partnership and its share of the original net assets of $7,474, is being amortized over 20 years as additional equity in earnings in the unconsolidated partnership. During the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the Partnership recorded equity in earnings from CF Martin Sulphur of $120 and $362 respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the Partnership recorded equity in earnings from CF Martin Sulphur of $195 and $891, respectively. During the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the Partnership did not receive any cash distributions from the unconsolidated partnership. The Partnership has recorded a negative investment in CF Martin Sulphur of $(556) and $(750), at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.


	Three months ended						Six months ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Revenues	$	16,303		$	16,196		$	31,351		$	32,694
Costs and expenses		16,115			15,534			31,067			31,031

Operating income		188			662			284			1,663
Interest expense		(211	)		(196	)		(420	)		(396	)
Other, net		—			1			—			4

Net income (loss)	$	(23	)	$	467		$	(136	)	$	1,271

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

7. Related Party Transactions

Included in the financial statements for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, are various related party transactions and balances primarily with MRMC and affiliates and CF Martin Sulphur. More information concerning these transactions is set forth elsewhere in this quarterly report and in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005.

Significant transactions with these related parties are reflected in the financial statements as follows:

MRMC and Affiliates


	Three Months						Six Months
	Ended						Ended
	June 30						June 30
	2005			2004			2005			2004
LPG product sales (LPG revenues)	$	—		$	63		$	—		$	317
Terminalling revenue and wharfage fees (terminalling revenues)		1,885			1,067			4,032			2,040
Lube oil product sales (terminalling product sales revenues)		1			46			2			68
Marine transportation revenues (marine transportation revenues)		2,250			1,957			4,316			3,808
Fertilizer product sales (fertilizer revenues)		9			719			10			1,193
LPG storage and throughput expenses (LPG cost of products sold)		49			61			172			391
Land transportation hauling costs (LPG/fertilizer cost of products sold)		2,057			1,721			4,327			3,476
Sulfuric acid product purchases/plant equipment lease rent (fertilizer cost of products sold)		1,018			497			2,335			1,221
Fertilizer salaries and benefits (fertilizer cost of products sold)		689			671			1,390			1,358
Sulfur salaries and benefits (sulfur cost of products sold)		51			—			51			—
Lube oil product purchases (terminalling cost of products sold)		2			—			30			—
Marine fuel purchases (operating expenses)		1,480			1,008			2,606			2,134
Marine towing expense (operating expenses)		182			—			362			—
LPG truck loading costs (operating expenses)		100			100			200			167
Marine transportation salaries and benefits (operating expenses)		2,000			2,087			4,000			3,972
LPG salaries and benefits (operating expenses)		136			129			285			275
Vehicle lease expense (operating expenses)		—			39			—			81
Terminalling handling fees/Lube land transportation hauling costs (operating expenses)		347			137			733			263
Terminalling salaries and benefits (operating expenses)		271			—			514			—
Terminalling salaries and benefits ( selling, general and administrative expenses)		259			328			510			729
Reimbursement of overhead (offset to selling, general and administrative expenses)		(30	)		(30	)		(60	)		(60	)
LPG salaries and benefits (selling, general and administrative expenses)		243			190			449			362
Fertilizer salaries and benefits (selling, general and administrative expenses)		311			304			630			573
Indirect overhead allocation expenses (selling, general and administrative expenses)		306			258			612			508

CF Martin Sulphur


	Three Months						Six Months Ended
	Ended June 30,						June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Marine transportation revenues (marine transportation revenues)	$	1,418		$	1,439		$	2,907		$	2,853
Lube oil product sales (terminalling product sales revenues)		—			16			2			35
Fertilizer handling fee (fertilizer revenues)		75			38			168			99
Product purchase settlements (fertilizer cost of products sold)		108			243			240			467
Marine tug lease (operating expenses)		—			17			9			17
Marine crew charge reimbursement (offset to operating expenses)		(305	)		(304	)		(606	)		(609	)
Reimbursement of overhead (offset to selling, general and administrative expenses)		(50	)		(50	)		(101	)		(101	)

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

8. Business Segments

The Partnership has five reportable segments: terminalling, marine transportation, LPG distribution, sulfur and fertilizer. The Partnership’s reportable segments are strategic business units that offer different products and services. The operating income of these segments is reviewed by the chief operating decision maker to assess performance and make business decisions.


						Operating
						Revenues		Depreciation		Operating
	Operating		Intersegment			after		and		Income			Capital
	Revenues		Eliminations			Eliminations		Amortization		(loss)			Expenditures
Three months ended June 30, 2005
Terminalling	$	7,841	$	(17	)	$	7,824	$	1,108	$	2,203		$	144
Marine transportation		9,656		(74	)		9,582		1,218		1,083			1,084
LPG distribution		57,688		—			57,688		54		358			162
Sulfur		940		—			940		44		197			2,785
Fertilizer		8,862		—			8,862		282		884			73
Indirect selling, general and administrative		—		—			—		—		(848	)		—


Total	$	84,987	$	(91	)	$	84,896	$	2,706	$	3,877		$	4,248


Three months ended June 30, 2004
Terminalling	$	5,733	$	(38	)	$	5,695	$	832	$	1,296		$	25,751
Marine transportation		8,797		(60	)		8,737		875		1,762			1,189
LPG distribution		38,656		—			38,656		28		186			8
Sulfur		—		—			—		—		—			—
Fertilizer		8,165		—			8,165		231		205			86
Indirect selling, general and administrative		—		—			—		—		(650	)		—


Total	$	61,351	$	(98	)	$	61,253	$	1,966	$	2,799		$	27,034


						Operating
						Revenues		Depreciation		Operating
	Operating		Intersegment			after		and		Income			Capital
	Revenues		Eliminations			Eliminations		Amortization		(loss)			Expenditures
Six months ended June 30, 2005
Terminalling	$	15,916	$	(46	)	$	15,870	$	2,215	$	4,453		$	1,217
Marine transportation		18,171		(115	)		18,056		2,429		2,015			3,321
LPG distribution		127,755		—			127,755		110		2,012			3,165
Sulfur		940		—			940		44		197			2,785
Fertilizer		18,415		—			18,415		562		1,363			89
Indirect selling, general and administrative		—		—			—		—		(1,668	)		—


Total	$	181,197	$	(161	)	$	181,036	$	5,360	$	8,372		$	10,577


Six months ended June 30, 2004
Terminalling	$	11,494	$	(61	)	$	11,433	$	1,546	$	2,766		$	25,757
Marine transportation		16,803		(118	)		16,685		1,794		3,066			1,944
LPG distribution		84,822		—			84,822		57		807			9
Sulfur		—		—			—		—		—			—
Fertilizer		17,381		—			17,381		475		1,201			255
Indirect selling, general and administrative		—		—			—		—		(1,237	)		—


Total	$	130,500	$	(179	)	$	130,321	$	3,872	$	6,603		$	27,965

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30						June 30
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Operating income	$	3,877		$	2,799		$	8,372		$	6,603
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities		120			362			195			891
Interest expense		(1,126	)		(758	)		(2,195	)		(1,462	)
Other, net		72			19			102			28

Income before income taxes	$	2,943		$	2,422		$	6,474		$	6,060

Total assets by segment are as follows:


	June 30,		December 31,
	2005		2004
Total assets:
Terminalling	$	67,499	$	68,118
Marine transportation		54,035		53,195
LPG distribution		41,436		47,131
Sulfur		8,616		—
Fertilizer		18,293		19,888

Total assets	$	189,879	$	188,332

9. Follow On Offering

In February 2004, the Partnership completed a public offering of 1,322,500 common units at a price of $27.94 per common unit, before the payment of underwriters’ discounts, commissions and offering expenses (per unit value is in dollars, not thousands). Following this offering, the common units represented a 47.8% partnership interest in the Partnership. Total proceeds from the sale of the 1,322,500 common units, net of underwriters’ discounts, commissions and offering expenses, were $34,016. The Partnership’s general partner contributed $754 in cash to the Partnership in conjunction with the issuance in order to maintain its 2% general partner interest in the Partnership. The net proceeds were used to pay down revolving debt under the Partnership’s credit facility.

A summary of the proceeds received from these transactions and the use of the proceeds received therefrom is as follows (all amounts are in thousands):


*Proceeds received:*
Sale of common units	$	36,951
General partner contribution		754


Total proceeds received	$	37,705


*Use of Proceeds:*
Underwriter’s fees	$	1,940
Professional fees and other costs		995
Repayment of debt under revolving credit facility		30,000
Working capital		4,770


Total use of proceeds	$	37,705

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

10. Long-term Debt

At June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, long-term debt consisted of the following:


	June 30,		December 31,
	2005		2004
$30,000 Working capital subfacility at variable interest rate (5.15%* weighted average at June 30, 2005), due October 2008, secured by accounts receivable and inventory	$	11,000	$	18,000

$120,000 Acquisition sub facility at variable interest rate (5.27%* at June 30, 2005), due October 2008, secured by property, plant and equipment		63,500		55,000


Total long-term debt		74,500		73,000
Less current installments		—		—

Long-term debt, net of current installments	$	74,500	$	73,000


*		Interest rate fluctuates based on the LIBOR rate plus 225 basis points set on the date of each advance. The margin above LIBOR is set every three months. Effective May 3, 2005, our interest rates for each advance dropped to the LIBOR rate plus 175 basis points set on the date of each advance.

On October 29, 2004, we entered into a $100 million amended and restated credit facility comprised of (i) a $30.0 million working capital subfacility, including a $5.0 million letter of credit sub-limit that was used for ongoing working capital needs and general partnership purposes, and (ii) a $70.0 million acquisition subfacility that was used to finance permitted acquisitions and capital expenditures. On May 3, 2005, the Partnership increased the amount eligible for borrowing under the amended and restated credit facility to $150 million comprised of (i) a $30.0 million working capital subfacility that will be used for ongoing working capital needs and general partnership purposes, and (ii) a $120.0 million acquisition subfacility that may be used to finance permitted acquisitions and capital expenditures.

On May 3, 2005, we borrowed $5.0 million under the acquisition line of credit to fund the purchase the operating assets of Bay Sulfur Company. As of June 30, 2005, we had $16.5 million available for working capital and $56.5 million available for expansion and acquisition activities under the Partnership’s revolving credit facility.

On January 3, 2005, we borrowed $3.5 million under the acquisition line of credit to fund the purchase of a liquefied petroleum gas pipeline.

On June 1, 2004, we issued a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit to the seller of the Neches terminal under an escrow agreement in order to secure the Partnership’s performance and to provide storage operations for a future lessee. We withheld $2.5 million of the purchase price and paid this amount into an escrow account. The escrow agreement provides that a future lessee may draw upon this escrow account upon a defined event of default or a force majeure event under the terms of the amended lease agreement. The escrow account will be paid to the seller over a two year period beginning in November 2005. We believe the likelihood of any draws under this letter of credit to be remote.

Draws made under the Partnership’s amended and restated credit facility are normally made to fund acquisitions and for working capital requirements. During the current fiscal year, draws on the Partnership’s amended and restated credit facility have ranged from a low of $72.5 million to a high of $93.9 million.

The Partnership’s obligations under the amended and restated credit facility are secured by substantially all of the Partnership’s assets, including, without limitation, inventory, accounts receivable, vessels, equipment and fixed assets. We may prepay all amounts outstanding under this facility at any time without penalty.

MARTIN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED AND CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands, except where otherwise indicated)
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)

Indebtedness under the amended and restated credit facility bears interest at either LIBOR plus an applicable margin or the base prime rate plus an applicable margin. Prior to May 3, 2005, the applicable margin for LIBOR loans ranged from 1.75% to 2.75% and the applicable margin for base prime rate loans ranged from 0.75% to 1.75%. Effective May 3, 2005, the applicable margin for LIBOR loans ranges from 1.25% to 2.25% and the applicable margin for base prime rate loans will range from 0.25% to 1.25%. The Partnership incurs a commitment fee on the unused portions of the revolving credit facility.

In addition, the amended and restated credit agreement contains various covenants, which, among other things, limit the Partnership’s ability to: (i) incur indebtedness; (ii) grant certain liens; (iii) merge or consolidate unless we are the survivor; (iv) sell all or substantially all of the Partnership’s assets; (v) make acquisitions; (vi) make certain investments; (vii) make capital expenditures; (viii) make distributions other than from available cash; (ix) create obligations for some lease payments; (x) engage in transactions with affiliates; or (xi) engage in other types of business.

The amended and restated credit agreement also contains covenants, which, among other things, require us to maintain specified ratios of: (i) minimum net worth (as defined in the credit agreement) of $65.0 million; (ii) EBITDA (as defined in the credit agreement) to interest expense of not less than 3.0 to 1.0; (iii) total debt to EBITDA, pro forma for any asset acquisition, of not more than 3.5 to 1.0; (iv) current assets to current liabilities of not less than 1.1 to 1.0; and (v) an orderly liquidation value of pledged fixed assets to the aggregate outstanding principal amount of acquisition subfacility of not less than 1.5 to 1.0. We were in compliance with the debt covenants contained in credit facility for the year ended December 31, 2004 and as of June 30, 2005.

The amount we are able to borrow under the working capital subfacility is based on a formula. Under this formula, our borrowing base under the subfacility is calculated based on 75% of eligible accounts receivable plus 60% of eligible inventory.

Other than mandatory prepayments that would be triggered by certain asset dispositions, the issuance of subordinated indebtedness or as required under the above noted borrowing base reductions, the amended and restated credit agreement requires interest only payments on a quarterly basis until maturity. All outstanding principal and unpaid interest must be paid by October 29, 2008. The amended and restated credit agreement contains customary events of default, including, without limitation, payment defaults, cross-defaults to other material indebtedness, bankruptcy-related defaults, change of control defaults and litigation-related defaults.

On July 15, 2005, we assumed $9.4 million of U.S. Government guaranteed ship financing bonds, maturing in 2021, relating to the acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur. These bonds are payable in equal semi-annual installments of $291,000, and are secured by certain marine vessels. Pursuant to the terms of an amendment to our credit facility we entered into in connection with the acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur, we are obligated to pay off these bonds by March 31, 2006.

The Partnership paid cash interest in the amount of $1,195 and, $784 for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $2,235 and, $1,366 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

References in this quarterly report to “we,” “ours,” “us” or like terms when used in a historical context refer to the assets and operations of Martin Resource Management’s business contributed to us in connection with our initial public offering on November 6, 2002. References in this quarterly report to “Martin Resource Management” refers to Martin Resource Management Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. We refer to liquefied petroleum gas as “LPG” in this quarterly report. You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the consolidated and condensed financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this quarterly report.

Forward-Looking Statements

This report on Form 10-Q includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements included in this quarterly report that are not historical facts (including any statements concerning plans and objectives of management for future operations or economic performance, or assumptions or forecasts related thereto), including, without limitation, the information set forth in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, are forward-looking statements. These statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology including “forecast,” “may,” “believe,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue” or other similar words. These statements discuss future expectations, contain projections of results of operations or of financial condition or state other “forward-looking” information. We and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements that are also forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are made based upon management’s current plans, expectations, estimates, assumptions and beliefs concerning future events impacting us and therefore involve a number of risks and uncertainties. We caution that forward-looking statements are not guarantees and that actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements.

Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements for a number of important reasons, including those discussed under “Risks Related to Our Business” and elsewhere in this quarterly report.

Overview

We are a Delaware limited partnership formed by Martin Resource Management to receive the transfer of substantially all of the assets, liabilities and operations of Martin Resource Management related to the five lines of business in which we operate. We provide terminalling, marine transportation, distribution and midstream logistical services for producers and suppliers of hydrocarbon products and by-products, specialty chemicals and other liquids. We also manufacture and market sulfur-based fertilizers and related products. In April, 2005 we began a new line of business which provides marketing, transportation, storage, processing and distribution of molten and pelletized sulfur. Hydrocarbon products and by-products are produced primarily by major and independent oil and gas companies who often turn to independent third parties, such as us, for the transportation and disposition of these products. In addition to these major and independent oil and gas companies, our primary customers include independent refiners, large chemical companies, fertilizer manufacturers and other wholesale purchasers of hydrocarbon products and by-products. We operate primarily in the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

We analyze and report our results of operations on a segment basis. Our five operating segments are:

	•		terminalling and sales of hydrocarbon products and by-products;

	•		marine transportation services for hydrocarbon products and by-products;

	•		distribution of LPGs;

	•		marketing, storage, terminalling, transportation, processing and distribution of molten and pelletized sulfur; and

•

manufacturing and marketing of fertilizer products, which are primarily sulfur-based, and other sulfur-related products.

In November 2000, Martin Resource Management and CF Industries, Inc. formed CF Martin Sulphur, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“CF Martin Sulphur”). CF Martin Sulphur collects and aggregates, transports, stores and markets molten sulfur. Prior to November 2000, Martin Resource Management operated this molten sulfur business as part of its LPG distribution business which was contributed to us in connection with our formation. Prior to July 15, 2005, we owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partner interest in CF Martin Sulphur. We accounted for this interest in CF Martin Sulphur using the equity method since we did not control this entity. As a result, we have not included any portion of the revenue, operating costs or operating income attributable to CF Martin Sulphur in our results of operations or in the results of operations of any of our operating segments. Rather, we have included only our share of its net income in our statement of operations.

Under the equity method of accounting, we do not include any individual assets or liabilities of CF Martin Sulphur on our balance sheet. Currently, we have recorded a negative investment in CF Martin Sulphur of $0.6 million which we expect to recover through future earnings. Due to this fact, at June 30, 2005, we have reported this negative investment in the “Other long term obligations” caption on the balance sheet. We have not guaranteed the repayment of any debt of CF Martin Sulphur and we should not otherwise be required to repay any obligations of CF Martin Sulphur if it defaults on any such obligations.

On July 15, 2005, the Partnership acquired all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur from CF Industries, Inc. and certain affiliates of Martin Resource Management Corporation for $18.8 million. Subsequent to the acquisition, it will be included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur operating segment.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on the historical consolidated and condensed financial statements included elsewhere herein. We prepared these financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements required us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We based our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Our results may differ from these estimates. Currently, other than as described below, we believe that our accounting policies do not require us to make estimates using assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain. However, we have described below the critical accounting policies that we believe could impact our consolidated and condensed financial statements most significantly.

You should also read Note 2, “Significant Accounting Policies” in Notes to Consolidated and Condensed Financial Statements contained in this quarterly report and the similar note in the consolidated and combined financial statements included in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 16, 2005 in conjunction with this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Some of the more significant estimates in these financial statements include the amount of the allowance for doubtful accounts receivable and the determination of the fair value of our reporting units under SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (“SFAS 142”).

Product Exchanges. We enter into product exchange agreements with third parties whereby we agree to exchange LPGs with third parties. We record the balance of LPGs due to other companies under these agreements at quoted market product prices and the balance of LPGs due from other companies at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined using the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method.

Revenue Recognition. For our terminalling segment, we recognize revenue monthly for storage contracts based on the contracted monthly tank fixed fee. For throughput contracts, we recognize revenue based on the volume moved through our terminals at the contracted rate. For our marine transportation segment, we recognize revenue for contracted trips upon completion of the trips. For time charters, we recognize revenue based on the daily rate. For our LPG distribution segment, we recognize revenue for product delivered by truck upon the delivery of LPGs to our customers, which occurs when the customer physically receives the product. When product is sold in storage, or by pipeline, we recognize revenue when the customer receives the product from either the storage facility or pipeline. For our sulfur segment, we recognize revenue for product delivered by truck upon the delivery

of sulfur to our customers, which occurs when the customer physically receives the product. For our fertilizer segment, we recognize revenue when the customer takes title to the product, either at our plant or the customer’s facility.

Equity Method Investment. We used the equity method of accounting for our interest in CF Martin Sulphur because we only owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partner interest in this entity. We did not recognize a gain when we contributed our molten sulfur business to CF Martin Sulphur because we concluded we had an implied commitment to support the operations of this entity as a result of our role as a supplier of product to CF Martin Sulphur and our relationship to Martin Resource Management, which guarantees certain of the debt of this entity.

As a result of the non-recognition of this gain, the amount we initially recorded as an investment in CF Martin Sulphur on our balance sheet is less than the amount of our underlying equity in this entity as recorded on the books of CF Martin Sulphur. We are amortizing such excess amount over 20 years, the expected life of the net assets contributed to this entity, as additional equity in earnings of CF Martin Sulphur in our statements of operations.

On July 15, 2005, we acquired all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur, L.P. Subsequent to the acquisition, it will be included in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements and included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur segment.

Goodwill. Goodwill is subject to a fair-value based impairment test on an annual basis.

The Partnership is required to identify its reporting units and determine the carrying value of each reporting unit by assigning the assets and liabilities, including the existing goodwill and intangible assets. The Partnership is required to determine the fair value of each reporting unit and compare it to the carrying amount of the reporting unit. To the extent the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds the fair value of the reporting unit, the Partnership would be required to perform the second step of the impairment test, as this is an indication that the reporting unit goodwill may be impaired.

We have performed the annual impairment tests as of September 30, 2002, September 30, 2003 and September 30, 2004, respectively. In performing such tests, we determined we had three “reporting units” which contained goodwill. These reporting units were three of our reporting segments: marine transportation, LPG distribution and fertilizer.

We determined fair value in each reporting unit based on a multiple of current annual cash flows. We determined such multiple from our recent experience with actual acquisitions and dispositions and valuing potential acquisitions and dispositions.

Environmental Liabilities. We have historically not experienced circumstances requiring us to account for environmental remediation obligations. If such circumstances arise, we would estimate remediation obligations utilizing a remediation feasibility study and any other related environmental studies that we may elect to perform. We would record changes to our estimated environmental liability as circumstances change or events occur, such as the issuance of revised orders by governmental bodies or court or other judicial orders and our evaluation of the likelihood and amount of the related eventual liability.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts. In evaluating the collectibility of our accounts receivable, we assess a number of factors, including a specific customer’s ability to meet its financial obligations to us, the length of time the receivable has been past due and historical collection experience. Based on these assessments, we record both specific and general reserves for bad debts to reduce the related receivable to the amount we ultimately expect to collect from customers.

Asset Retirement Obligation. In accordance with SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations” (“SFAS 143”), we recognize and measure our asset retirement obligations and the associated asset retirement cost upon acquisition of the related asset. Subsequent measurement and accounting provisions are in accordance with SFAS 143.

Our Relationship with Martin Resource Management

Martin Resource Management is engaged in the following principal business activities:

	•		providing land transportation of various liquids using a fleet of trucks and road vehicles and road trailers;

	•		distributing fuel oil, sulfuric acid, marine fuel and other liquids;

	•		providing marine bunkering and other shore-based marine services in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas;

	•		operating a small crude oil gathering business in Stephens, Arkansas;

	•		operating an underground LPG storage facility in Arcadia, Louisiana;

	•		supplying employees and services for the operation of our business;

	•		operating, for its account, our account and the account of CF Martin Sulphur, the docks, roads, loading and unloading facilities and other common use facilities or access routes at our Stanolind terminal; and

	•		operating, solely for our account, an LPG truck loading and unloading and pipeline distribution terminal in Mont Belvieu, Texas.

We are and will continue to be closely affiliated with Martin Resource Management as a result of the following relationships.

Ownership. Martin Resource Management currently owns approximately 52.2% of our outstanding partnership interests. This includes the ownership of our general partner which owns a 2.0% general partner interest and our incentive distribution rights.

Management. Martin Resource Management directs our business operations through its ownership and control of our general partner. We benefit from our relationship with Martin Resource Management through access to a significant pool of management expertise and established relationships throughout the energy industry. We do not have employees. Martin Resource Management employees are responsible for conducting our business and operating our assets on our behalf.

We are a party to an omnibus agreement with Martin Resource Management. The omnibus agreement requires us to reimburse Martin Resource Management for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or payments it makes on our behalf or in connection with the operation of our business. We reimbursed Martin Resource Management for $9.2 million of direct costs and expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $7.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004. We reimbursed Martin Resource Management for $18.6 million of direct costs and expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $15.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. There is no monetary limitation on the amount we are required to reimburse Martin Resource Management for direct expenses. Under the omnibus agreement, the reimbursement amount with respect to indirect general and administrative and corporate overhead expenses was capped at $2.0 million for the twelve month period ending October 31, 2004. For each of the subsequent three years, this amount may be increased by no more than the percentage increase in the consumer price index and is also subject to adjustment for expansions of our operations. We reimbursed Martin Resource Management for $0.3 million of indirect expenses for both quarters ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. We reimbursed Martin Resource Management for $0.6 million of indirect expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $0.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. These indirect expenses cover all of the centralized corporate functions Martin Resource Management provides for us, such as accounting, treasury, clerical billing, information technology, administration of insurance, general office expenses and employee benefit plans and other general corporate overhead functions we share with Martin Resource Management retained businesses.

Martin Resource Management also licenses certain of its trademarks and trade names to us under this omnibus agreement.

Commercial. We have been and anticipate that we will continue to be both a significant customer and supplier of products and services offered by Martin Resource Management. Our motor carrier agreement with Martin Resource Management provides us with access to Martin Resource Management’s fleet of road vehicles and road trailers to provide land transportation in the areas served by Martin Resource Management. Our ability to utilize Martin Resource Management’s land transportation operations is currently a key component of our integrated distribution network.

We also use the underground storage facilities owned by Martin Resource Management in our LPG distribution operations. We lease an underground storage facility from Martin Resource Management in Arcadia, Louisiana with a storage capacity of 120 million gallons. Our use of this storage facility gives us greater flexibility in our operations by allowing us to store a sufficient supply of product during times of decreased demand for use when demand increases.

In the aggregate, our purchases of land transportation services, LPG storage services, sulfuric acid and lube oil product purchases and sulfur and fertilizer payroll reimbursements from Martin Resource Management accounted for approximately 6% of our total cost of products sold during both the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. We also purchase marine fuel from Martin Resource Management, which we account for as an operating expense.

Correspondingly, Martin Resource Management is one of our significant customers. It primarily uses our terminalling, marine transportation and LPG distribution services for its operations. Martin Resource Management is also a significant customer of fertilizer products and we provide terminalling services under a terminal services agreement. We provide marine transportation services to Martin Resource Management under a charter agreement on a spot-contract basis at applicable market rates. Our sales to Martin Resource Management accounted for approximately 5% and 6% of our total revenues for both the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In connection with the closing of the Tesoro Marine asset acquisition, we entered into certain agreements with Martin Resource Management pursuant to which we provide terminalling and marine transportation services to Midstream Fuel and Midstream Fuel provides terminal services to us to handle lubricants, greases and drilling fluids.

Omnibus Agreement

We are a party to an omnibus agreement with Martin Resource Management. In this agreement:

	•		Martin Resource Management agreed to not compete with us in the terminalling, marine transportation, LPG distribution and fertilizer businesses, subject to the exceptions described more fully in “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Agreements — Omnibus Agreement” of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005.

	•		Martin Resource Management agreed to indemnify us for a period of five years for environmental losses arising prior to our initial public offering, which we closed in November 2002, as well as preexisting litigation and tax liabilities.

	•		We agreed to reimburse Martin Resource Management for the provision of general and administrative services under our partnership agreement, provided that the reimbursement amount with respect to indirect general and administrative and corporate overhead expenses was capped at $2.0 million for the year ending October 31, 2004. For each of the subsequent three years, this amount may be increased by no more than the percentage increase in the consumer price index and is also subject to adjustment for expansions of our operations. In addition, our general partner has the right to agree to further increases in connection with expansions of our operations through the construction of new assets or businesses. This limitation does not apply to the cost of any third party legal, accounting or advisory services received, or the direct expenses of Martin Resource Management incurred, in connection with acquisition or business development opportunities evaluated on our behalf.

	•		Martin Resource Management agreed to exercise its management rights in CF Martin Sulphur in a manner it reasonably believes is in our best interests, subject to the limitations described more fully in “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Agreements — Omnibus Agreement” of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with

			the SEC on March 16, 2005. Additionally, Martin Resource Management agreed it will not purchase any third party interest in this partnership, or sell its or our interest in this partnership, without our written consent or, in some cases, only as we direct. In the event we agree to purchase an interest in CF Martin Sulphur from a third party, we and Martin Resource Management agreed that the purchase price for and ownership of such interest will be allocated between us in accordance with our respective ownership percentages in the partnership. Due to purchase of all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur on July 15, 2005, this allocation is no longer applicable.

	•		We are prohibited from entering into certain material agreements with Martin Resource Management without the approval of the conflicts committee of our general partner’s board of directors.

Motor Carrier Agreement

We are a party to a motor carrier agreement with Martin Transport, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Martin Resource Management, through which Martin Resource Management operates its land transportation operations. This agreement has an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. Under this agreement, Martin Transport transports our LPG shipments as well as other liquid products. Our shipping rates were fixed for the first year of the agreement, subject to certain cost adjustments. These rates are subject to any adjustment to which we mutually agree or in accordance with a price index. Additionally, during the term of the agreement, shipping charges are also subject to fuel surcharges determined on a weekly basis in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy’s national diesel price list.

Other Agreements

We are also parties to the following:

	•		Specialty Petroleum Terminal Services Agreement — under which we provide terminalling services to Martin Resource Management at a set rate. This agreement has an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. The fees we charge under this agreement were fixed in the first year of the agreement and are adjusted annually based on a price index.

	•		Marine Transportation Agreement — under which we provide marine transportation services to Martin Resource Management on a spot-contract basis. This agreement has an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. The fees we charge Martin Resource Management are based on applicable market rates. Additionally, Martin Resource Management has agreed for a period of three years, beginning on November 1, 2002, to use our four vessels that are currently not subject to term agreements in a manner such that we will receive at least $5.6 million annually for the use of these vessels by Martin Resource Management and third parties.

	•		Product Storage Agreement — under which Martin Resource Management provides us underground storage for LPGs. This agreement has an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. Our per-unit cost under this agreement was fixed for the first year of the agreement and is adjusted annually based on a price index.

	•		Product Supply Agreements — under which Martin Resource Management provides us with marine fuel and sulfuric acid. These agreements have an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. We purchase products at a set margin above Martin Resource Management’s cost for such products during the term of the agreements.

	•		Throughput Agreement — under which Martin Resource Management agrees to provide us with sole access to and use of a LPG truck loading and unloading and pipeline distribution terminal located at Mont Belvieu, Texas. This agreement has an initial term that expires in October 2005, and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. Our throughput fee was fixed for the first year of the agreement and is adjusted annually based on a price index.

	•		Terminal Services Agreement — under which we provide terminalling services to Martin Resource Management. The per gallon throughput fee we charge under this agreement is fixed during the first year of the agreement and is adjusted annually based on a price index This agreement has a three-year term, which began in December 2003, and will automatically renew on a month-to-month basis until either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term.

	•		Transportation Services Agreement — under which we provide marine transportation services to Martin Resource Management. The per gallon fee we charge under this agreement is fixed during the first year of the agreement and is adjusted annually based upon mutual agreement of the parties or in accordance with a price index. This agreement has a three-year term, which began in December 2003, and will automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-applicable term. In addition, within 30-days of the expiration of the then-applicable term, both parties have the right to renegotiate the rate for the use of our vessels. If no agreement is reached as to a new rate by the end of the then-applicable term, the agreement will terminate.

	•		Lubricants and Drilling Fluids Terminal Services Agreement — under which Martin Resource Management provides terminal services to us. The per gallon handling fee and the percentage of our commissions we are charged under this agreement is fixed during the first year of the agreement and is adjusted annually based on a price index. This agreement has a one-year term, which began in December 2003, and will automatically renew for successive one-year terms until either party terminates the agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least 60 days prior to the end of the then-applicable term.

Finally, Martin Resource Management also granted us a perpetual, non-exclusive use, ingress-egress and utility facilities easement in connection with the transfer of our Stanolind terminal assets to us. Please read “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Omnibus Agreement,” “— Motor Carrier Agreement” and “— Other Agreements” for a more complete discussion of our contracts with Martin Resource Management.

Further information concerning our relationship with Martin Resource Management and its affiliates is set forth in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005.

Our Relationship with CF Martin Sulphur

Prior to July 15, 2005, we were both an important supplier to and customer of CF Martin Sulphur. We chartered one of our offshore tug/barge tanker units to CF Martin Sulphur for a guaranteed daily rate, subject to certain adjustments. This charter had an unlimited term but may be cancelled by CF Martin Sulphur upon 90 days notice. CF Martin Sulphur paid to have this tug/barge tanker unit reconfigured to carry molten sulfur. In the event CF Martin Sulphur terminated this charter agreement, we would have been obligated to reimburse CF Martin Sulphur for a portion of such reconfiguration costs. As of June 30, 2005, our aggregate reimbursement liability would have been approximately $1.5 million. This amount decreased by approximately $300,000 annually based on an amortization rate.

As a result of the July 15, 2005 acquisition of all the outstanding interests in CF Martin Sulphur this contingent obligation has been terminated.

Revenues from our relationship with CF Martin Sulphur accounted for approximately 15% and 16% of our total marine transportation revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Revenues

from our relationship with CF Martin Sulphur accounted for approximately 16% and 17% of our total marine transportation revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In addition, we purchased all our sulfur from CF Martin Sulphur at its cost under a sulfur supply contract. This agreement had an annual term, which was renewable for subsequent one-year periods.

Prior to July 15, 2005, we owned an unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partner interest in CF Martin Sulphur. CF Martin Sulphur is managed by its general partner who was jointly owned and controlled by CF Industries and Martin Resource Management. Martin Resource Management also conducted the day-to-day operations of CF Martin Sulphur under a long-term services agreement.

On July 15, 2005, we acquired all of the outstanding limited partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur from CF Industries, Inc. and certain affiliates of Martin Resource Management for $18.8 million. Prior to this transaction, our unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur, was accounted for using the equity method of accounting. In addition, on July 15, 2005, we acquired all of the outstanding membership interests in CF Martin Sulphur’s general partner. Thus, we now control the management of CF Martin Sulphur and will conduct its day to day operatins. Subsequent to the acquisition, CF Martin Sulphur will be a wholly-owned partnership which will be included in our consolidated financial statements and included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur segment.

Further information concerning our relationship with CF Martin Sulphur is set forth in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2005.

Results of Operations

The results of operations for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 have been derived from the consolidated and condensed financial statements of the Partnership.

We evaluate segment performance on the basis of operating income, which is derived by subtracting cost of products sold, operating expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses, and depreciation and amortization expense from revenues. The following table sets forth our operating income by segment, and equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities, for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. The results of operations for the first six months of the year are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations which might be expected for the entire year.


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
	(In thousands)
Operating income:
Terminalling	$	2,203		$	1,296		$	4,453		$	2,766
Marine transportation		1,083			1,762			2,015			3,066
LPG distribution		358			186			2,012			807
Sulfur		197			—			197			—
Fertilizer		884			205			1,363			1,201
Indirect selling, general and administrative expenses		(848	)		(650	)		(1,668	)		(1,237	)


Operating income	$	3,877		$	2,799		$	8,372		$	6,603


Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries	$	120		$	362		$	195		$	891

Our results of operations are discussed on a comparative basis below. There are certain items of income and expense which we do not allocate on a segment basis. These items, including equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities, interest expense, and indirect selling, general and administrative expenses, are discussed after the comparative discussion of our results within each segment.

Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to the Three Months Ended June 30, 2004

Our total revenues were $84.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $61.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $23.6 million, or 39%. Our cost of products sold was $66.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $46.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $19.5 million, or 42%. Our total operating expenses were $9.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $7.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $1.9 million, or 25%.

Our total selling, general and administrative expenses were $2.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $2.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.4 million, or 19%. Total depreciation and amortization was $2.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $2.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.7 million, or 38%. Our operating income was $3.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $2.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $1.1 million, or 39%.

The results of operations are described in greater detail on a segment basis below.

Terminalling Business.

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our terminalling segment.


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues:
Services	$	5,443	$	3,663
Products		2,381		2,032


Total revenues		7,824		5,695
Cost of products sold		1,921		1,673
Operating expenses		1,949		1,335

Operating margin		3,954		2,687
Selling, general and administrative expenses		643		559
Depreciation and amortization		1,108		832

Operating income	$	2,203	$	1,296

Revenues. Our terminalling revenues increased $2.1 million, or 37%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily due to additional revenue generated from the terminal assets we acquired from Neches Industrial Park Inc. (“Neches”) in June 2004. These assets contributed revenue of $1.3 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $0.4 million in the second quarter of 2004, an increase of $0.9 million. We also experienced increased sales volumes and terminal throughput rates at both our full service and our fuel and lubricant terminals. These terminals accounted for an increase of $0.9 million in services revenue and $0.3 million in products revenue.

Cost of products sold. Our cost of products sold increased $0.2 million, or 15%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was a result of a 16% increase in the price paid for lubricants in the second quarter of 2005 compared to the second quarter of 2004.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $0.6 million, or 46%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the additional operating expenses for the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses increased $0.1 million, or 15%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the additional selling, general and administrative expenses for the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased $0.3 million, or 33%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

In summary, our terminalling operating income increased $0.9 million, or 70%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004.

Marine Transportation Business

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our marine transportation segment.


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	9,582	$	8,737
Operating expenses		7,211		6,071

Operating margin		2,371		2,666
Selling, general and administrative expenses		70		29
Depreciation and amortization		1,218		875

Operating income	$	1,083	$	1,762

Revenues. Our marine transportation revenues increased $0.8 million, or 10%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. Our inland marine assets generated an additional $0.6 million due to stronger customer demand, higher equipment utilization and charging our inland customers the increase in our fuel costs. Additionally, offshore revenues were up $0.2 million due to increased utilization.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $1.1 million, or 19%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. . This increase was primarily a result of increased operating costs, including leased inland equipment,and fuel expenses.

Selling, general, and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses were approximately the same for both three month periods.

Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased $0.3 million, or 39%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of maintenance capital expenditures made in the last 12 months.

In summary, our marine transportation operating income decreased $0.7 million, or 39%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004.

LPG Distribution Business.

The following table summarized our results of operations in our LPG distribution segment.


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	57,688	$	38,656
Cost of products sold		56,412		37,826
Operating expenses		345		217

Operating margin		931		613
Selling, general and administrative expenses		519		399


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Depreciation and amortization		54		28

Operating income	$	358	$	186

LPG Volumes (gallons)		56,546		47,654

Revenues. Our LPG distribution revenue increased $19.0 million, or 49%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. Sales volume increased 19% as a result of increased demand from industrial customers and also increased sales to retail propane customers. Also our average sales price increased 26% for the second quarter of 2005 compared to the second quarter of 2004. This increase was due to a general increase in the prices of LPG’s.

Cost of product sold. Our cost of products sold increased $18.6 million, or 49%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was less than our increase in the LPG revenue, as we were able to increase our per gallon margins.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $0.1 million, or 59%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily the result of our East Texas pipeline acquisition which occurred in January 2005.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative increased $0.1 million, or 30% for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily the result of our East Texas pipeline acquisition which occurred in January 2005.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization was approximately the same for both three month periods.

In summary, LPG distribution operating income increased $0.2 million, or 92%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004.

Sulfur Business.

The following table summarized our results of operations in our Sulfur segment.


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	940	$	—
Cost of products sold		699		—

Operating margin		241		—
Depreciation and amortization		44		—

Operating income	$	197	$	—


Sulfur Volumes (tons)		10.7		—

Our new sulfur operating segment was established in April 2005, as a result of the acquisition of the Bay Sulfur assets and the beginning of construction of a sulfur priller, and the above table represents the results of its initial operations for the three months ending June 30, 2005.

Fertilizer Business

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our fertilizer segment.


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	8,862	$	8,165
Cost of products sold		7,257		7,245

Operating margin		1,605		920
Selling, general and administrative expenses		439		484
Depreciation and amortization		282		231

Operating income	$	884	$	205


Fertilizer Volumes (tons)		39.5		43.0

Revenues. Our fertilizer business revenues increased $0.7 million, or 9%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. Our sales volume decreased 8% as our marketing areas suffered dry weather conditions which decreased demand for our agricultural fertilizer products. This was offset by an 18% increase in our average sales price, as we were able to pass through increased raw material costs, and also increase our per ton margins.

Cost of products sold and operating expenses. Our cost of products sold and operating expenses were approximately the same for both three month periods, even though our volume sold decreased 8%. This decrease in volume was offset by a 9% increase in our cost per ton of fertilizer products sold. This increased cost per ton was a result of price increases of our raw materials.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses were approximately the same for both three month periods.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization was approximately the same for both three month periods.

In summary, our fertilizer operating income increased $0.7 million, or 331%, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to the Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Our total revenues were $181.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $130.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $50.7 million, or 39%. Our cost of products sold was $144.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $100.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $43.5 million, or 43%. Our total operating expenses were $18.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $15.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $3.0 million, or 20%.

Our total selling, general and administrative expenses were $5.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $4.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $1.0 million, or 24%. Total depreciation and amortization was $5.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $3.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $1.5 million, or 38%. Our operating income was $8.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared $6.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $1.8 million, or 27%.

The results of operations are described in greater detail on a segment basis below.

Terminalling Business.

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our terminalling segment.


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues:
Services	$	11,077	$	7,429
Products		4,793		4,004

Total revenues		15,870		11,433

Cost of products sold		4,020		3,323
Operating expenses		3,952		2,756

Operating margin		7,898		5,354
Selling, general and administrative expenses		1,230		1,042
Depreciation and amortization		2,215		1,546

Operating income	$	4,453	$	2,766

Revenues. Our terminalling revenues increased $4.4 million, or 39%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily due to additional revenue generated from the terminal assets we acquired from Neches in June 2004. These assets contributed additional revenue of $2.1 million in the first six months of 2005 compared to the first six months of 2004. We also experienced increased sales volume and terminal throughput rates primarily at both our full service and our fuel and lubricants terminals. These terminals accounted for an increase of $1.6 million in service revenues and $0.8 million in products revenue.

Cost of products sold. Our cost of products increased $0.7 million, or 21%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was a result of a 15% increase in the price paid for lubricants for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. Also, our sales volume increased 4% for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $1.2 million, or 43%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the additional operating expenses for the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses increased $0.2 million, or 18%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the additional selling, general and administrative expenses for the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased $0.7 million, or 43%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily a result of the Neches terminal asset acquisition.

In summary, terminalling operating income increased $1.7 million, or 61%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Marine Transportation Business

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our marine transportation segment.


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	18,056	$	16,685
Operating expenses		13,369		11,769

Operating margin		4,687		4,916
Selling, general and administrative expenses		243		56
Depreciation and amortization		2,429		1,794

Operating income	$	2,015	$	3,066

Revenues. Our marine transportation revenues increased $1.4 million, or 8%, for the six months ended June 20, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. Our inland marine assets generated additional revenue of $1.5 million due to stronger customer demand, higher equipment utilization and charging our inland customers the increase in our fuel costs. This was slightly offset by a $ 0.1 million decrease in offshore revenues.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $1.6 million, or 14%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. The increase was a result of increased operating costs, including leased operating equipment and fuel expenses.

Selling, general, and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses increased $0.2 million, or 334%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was due to the write-off of an uncollected receivable due from one customer.

Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased $0.6 million, or 35%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was due primarily to maintenance capital expenditures made in the last 12 months.

In summary, our marine transportation operating income decreased $1.1 million, or 34%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

LPG Distribution Business

The following table summarized our results of operations in our LPG distribution segment.


	Six Months Ended
	June 30
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	127,755	$	84,822
Cost of products sold		124,047		82,770
Operating expenses		666		435

Operating margin		3,042		1,617
Selling, general and administrative expenses		920		753
Depreciation and amortization		110		57

Operating income	$	2,012	$	807


LPG Volumes (gallons)		127,540		106,953

Revenues. Our LPG distribution revenues increased $42.9 million, or 51%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. Our sales volume increased 19% primarily as a result of increased demand from industrial customers and also increased sales to retail propane customers. Also, our average

sales price per gallon was 26% higher in the first six months of 2005 compared to the first six months of 2004. This price increase was due to a general increase in the prices of LPG’s.

Cost of product sold. Our cost of products increased $41.3 million, or 50%, for the six months ending June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was less than our increase in LPG revenue, as we were able to increase our per gallon margins.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $0.2 million, or 53%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily the result of our East Texas pipeline acquisition which occurred in January 2005.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses increased $0.2 million, or 22%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. This increase was primarily the result of our East Texas pipeline acquisition which occurred in January 2005.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization was approximately the same for both six month periods.

In summary, our LPG distribution income increased $1.2 million, or 149%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Sulfur Business.

The following table summarized our results of operations in our Sulfur segment.


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	940	$	—
Cost of products sold		699		—

Operating margin		241		—
Depreciation and amortization		44		—

Operating income	$	197	$	—


Sulfur Volumes (tons)		10.7		—

Our new sulfur operating segment was established in April, 2005, as a result of the acquisition of the Bay Sulfur assets and the beginning of construction on a sulfur priller, and the above table represents the results of its initial operations for the six months ending June 30, 2005.

Fertilizer Business

The following table summarizes our results of operations in our fertilizer segment.


	Six Months Ended
	June 30
	2005		2004
	(In thousands)
Revenues	$	18,415	$	17,381
Cost of products sold and operating expenses		15,566		14,757

Operating margin		2,849		2,624
Selling, general and administrative expenses		924		948
Depreciation and amortization		562		475

Operating income	$	1,363	$	1,201


Fertilizer Volumes (tons)		84.2		93.1

Revenues. Our fertilizer revenues increased $1.0 million, or 6%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. Our sales volume decreased 10% as our marketing areas suffered dry weather conditions which decreased demand for our agricultural fertilizer products. This was offset by a 17% increase in our average sales price, as we were able to pass through increased raw material costs and also, increase our per ton margins.

Cost of products sold and operating expenses. Our cost of products sold and operating expenses increased $0.8 million, or 5%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 This increase was due to a 17% increase in our cost per ton of fertilizer products sold. This increased cost per ton was a result of price increases of our raw materials. We experienced a 10% decrease in volume sold, which partially offset this increase in our cost per ton of fertilizer products sold.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general & administrative expenses were approximately the same for both six month periods

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization expenses increased $0.1 million, or 18%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

In summary, our fertilizer operating income increased $0.2 million, or 13%, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Statement of Operations Items as a Percentage of Revenues

Our cost of products sold, operating expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses, and depreciation and amortization as a percentage of revenues for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 are as follows:


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004

Revenues		100	%		100	%		100	%		100	%
Cost of products sold		78	%		76	%		80	%		77	%
Operating expenses		11	%		12	%		10	%		11	%
Selling, general and administrative expenses		3	%		3	%		3	%		3	%
Depreciation and amortization		3	%		3	%		3	%		3	%

Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Entities

For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities relates to our unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partner interest in CF Martin Sulphur.

Equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities for the three months ended June 30, 2005 decreased by $0.2 million, or 67%, for the same period in 2004. This decrease was the result of a 9% increase in operating expenses. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to increased fuel costs in CF Martin Sulphur’s barge transportation system. Due to these factors, we did not receive a cash distribution from CF Martin Sulphur for the three months ended June 30, 2005. For the three months ended June 30, 2004, we received a cash distribution of $0.6 million.

Equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 decreased $0.7 million, or 78%, for the same period in 2004. This decrease was the result of an 11% increase in operating expenses. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to increased fuel costs in CF Martin Sulphur’s barge transportation system. Due to these factors, we did not receive a cash distribution from CF Martin Sulphur for the six months ended June 30, 2005. For the six months ended June 30, 2004 we received cash distributions of $1.2 million.

Equity in earnings of C.F. Martin Sulphur includes amortization of the difference between our book investment in the partnership and our related underlying equity balance. Such amortization amounted to $0.1 million for both three month periods and $0.3 million for both six month periods.

On July 15, 2005, we acquired all of the outstanding partnership interests in CF Martin Sulphur from CF Industries, Inc. and certain affiliates of Martin Resource Management for $18.8 million. Prior to this transaction, our unconsolidated non-controlling 49.5% limited partnership interest in CF Martin Sulphur LP, was accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Subsequent to the acquisition, CF Martin Sulphur will be a wholly-owned partnership which will be included in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements and included in the financial presentation of the Partnership’s sulfur segment.

Interest Expense

Our interest expense for all operations was $1.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the $0.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.3 million or 49%. This increase was primarily due to an increase in average debt outstanding and an increase in interest rates in the second quarter of 2005 compared to the same period in 2004. Additionally, there was an increase in amortization of deferred debt costs of $0.1 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to the same period in 2004.

Our interest expense for all operations was $2.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $1.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.7 million, or 50%. This increase was primarily due to an increase in average debt outstanding and an increase in interest rates in the first six months of 2005 compared to the first six months of 2004.

Indirect Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses

Indirect selling, general and administrative expenses were $0.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $0.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.2 million or 30%. The increase was primarily due to increased overhead allocation of $0.1 million from Martin Resource Management, increased costs related to implementation of procedures under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) and costs related to potential acquisitions which failed to materialize.

Indirect selling, general and administrative expenses were $1.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $1.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, an increase of $0.4 million or 35%. The increase was primarily due to increased overhead allocation of $0.1 million from Martin Resource Management, increased costs related to implementation of procedures under the Sarbanes-Oxley and costs related to potential acquisitions which failed to materialize.

Martin Resource Management allocates to us a portion of its indirect selling, general and administrative expenses for services such as accounting, treasury, clerical billing, information technology, administration of insurance, engineering, general office expenses and employee benefit plans and other general corporate overhead functions we share with Martin Resource Management retained businesses. This allocation is based on the percentage of time spent by Martin Resource Management personnel that provide such centralized services. Generally accepted accounting principles also permit other methods for allocating these expenses, such as basing the allocation on the percentage of revenues contributed by a segment. The allocation of these expenses between Martin Resource Management and us is subject to a number of judgments and estimates, regardless of the method used. We can provide no assurances that our method of allocation, in the past or in the future, is or will be the most accurate or appropriate method of allocating these expenses. Other methods could result in a higher allocation of selling, general and administrative expenses to us, which would reduce our net income. Under the omnibus agreement, the reimbursement amount with respect to indirect general and administrative and corporate overhead expenses was capped at $2.0 million for the year period ending October 31, 2004. For each of the subsequent three years, this amount may be increased by no more than the percentage increase in the consumer price index and is also subject to adjustment for expansions of our operations. Effective January 2004, the cap was increased from $1.0 million to $2.0 million to account for the additional operations acquired in acquisitions, including the Tesoro Marine acquisition. In addition, our general partner has the right to agree to increases in this cap in connection with expansions of our operations through the acquisition or construction of new assets or businesses. Martin Resource Management allocated indirect selling, general and administrative expenses of $0.3 million for both three month periods. Martin Resource Management allocated indirect selling, general and administrative expenses of $0.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $0.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flows and Capital Expenditures

For the six months ended June 30, 2005, cash decreased $0.9 million as a result of $22.5 million provided by operating activities, $15.3 million used in investing activities and $8.2 million used in financing activities. For the six months ended June 30, 2004, cash increased $3.0 million, as a result of $11.4 million provided by operating activities, $27.8 million used in investing activities and $19.4 million provided by financing activities.

For the six months ended June 30, 2005 our investing activities of $15.3 million consisted primarily of capital expenditures and acquisitions. For the six months ended June 30, 2004, our investing activities consisted of cash distributions from an unconsolidated partnership and capital expenditures.

Generally, our capital expenditure requirements have consisted, and we expect that our capital requirements will continue to consist, of:

	•		maintenance capital expenditures, which are capital expenditures made to replace assets to maintain our existing operations and to extend the useful lives of our assets; and

	•		expansion capital expenditures, which are capital expenditures made to grow our business, to expand and upgrade our existing terminalling, marine transportation, storage and manufacturing facilities, and to construct new terminalling facilities, plants, storage facilities and new marine transportation assets.

For the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, our capital expenditures for property and equipment were $10.6 million and $28.0 million, respectively.

As to each period:

	•		For the six months ended June 30, 2005, we spent $8.3 million for expansion capital expenditures and $2.2 million for maintenance capital expenditures. Our expansion capital expenditures were made in connection with the purchase of a liquefied petroleum gas pipeline from an unrelated party in January 2005, the purchase of a sulfur priller from an unrelated party in April, 2005 and the purchase of additional marine equipment. Our maintenance capital expenditures were primarily made for terminalling, marine transportation, LPG distribution and fertilizer facilities.

	•		For the six months ended June 30, 2004, we spent $25.7 for expansion capital expenditures and $2.2 million for maintenance capital expenditures. Our expansion capital expenditures were made in

			connection with the Neches terminal acquisition. Our maintenance capital expenditures were made primarily for marine equipment and fertilizer facilities.

	•		For the six months ended June 30, 2005, financing activities consisted of cash distributions paid to common and subordinated unitholders of $9.3 million and payments of long-term debt under our credit facility of $10.4 million and borrowings of long-term debt under our credit facility of $11.9 million.

	•		For the six months ended June 30, 2004, financing activities consisted of cash distributions paid to common and subordinated unitholders of $8.4 million, net proceeds from a follow on equity offering of $34.8 million, payment of long term debt under our credit facility of $34.0 million and borrowings of long-term debt under our credit facility of $27.0 million.

Capital Resources

Historically, we have generally satisfied our working capital requirements and funded our capital expenditures with cash generated from operations and borrowings. We expect our primary sources of funds for short-term liquidity needs will be cash flows from operations and borrowings under our revolving line of credit.

As of June 30, 2005, we had $74.5 million of outstanding indebtedness, consisting of outstanding borrowings of $63.5 million under our $120.0 million acquisition loan sub facility and $11.0 million under our $30.0 million revolving loan sub facility. Under the acquisition loan facility, we borrowed $3.5 million in connection with the acquisition of the East Texas Pipeline in January 2005 and $5.0 million in connection with the acquisition of the operating assets of Bay Sulfur Company in April 2005. On July 15, 2005, we assumed $9.4 million of U.S. Government guaranteed ship financing bonds, maturing in 2021, relating to the acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur. These bonds are payable in equal semi-annual installments of $291,000, and are secured by certain marine vessels. Pursuant to the terms of an amendment to our credit facility we entered into in connection with the acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur, we are obligated to pay off these bonds by March 31, 2006.

In June 2004, we filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission covering the offer and sale from time to time, in our discretion and as our business circumstances and market conditions warrant, of up to $200 million of our common units, debt securities, and/or debt securities of our operating subsidiary. The nature and terms of any securities to be offered and sold under the registration statement, including the use of proceeds, will be described in related prospective supplements to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time.

We believe that cash generated from operations and our borrowing capacity under our revolving line of credit, will be sufficient to meet our working capital requirements, anticipated capital expenditures (exclusive of acquisitions) and scheduled debt payments for the 12-month period following this quarterly report. However, our ability to satisfy our working capital requirements, to fund planned capital expenditures and to satisfy our debt service obligations will depend upon our future operating performance, which is subject to certain risks. Please read “Risks Related to Our Business” for a discussion of such risks.

Total Contractual Cash Obligations. A summary of our total contractual cash obligations, as of June 30, 2005, is as follows (dollars in thousands):


	Payment due by period
	Total		Less than		1-3		3-5		Due
Type of Obligation	Obligation		One Year		Years		Years		Thereafter

Long-Term Debt
Working capital subfacility	$	11,000	$	—	$	—	$	11,000	$	—
Acquisition subfacility		63,500		—		—		63,500		—
Non-competition agreement		450		50		100		100		200
Operating leases		6,833		1,312		1,842		315		3,364
Interest expense:¹
Working capital subfacility		1,892		567		1,134		191		—
Acquisition subfacility		11,156		3,344		6,688		1,124		—


Total contractual cash obligations	$	94,831	$	5,273	$	9,764	$	76,230	$	3,564

¹Interest commitments are estimated using our current interest rates for the respective credit agreements over their remaining terms.

Letter of Credit. At June 30, 2005, the Partnership had an outstanding irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $2.5 million which is issued under its revolving credit facility.

No Off Balance Sheet Arrangements. We do not have any off-balance sheet financing arrangements.

Description of Our Credit Facility

On October 29, 2004, we entered into a $100 million amended and restated credit facility comprised of (i) a $30.0 million working capital subfacility, including a $5.0 million letter of credit sub-limit, that will be used for ongoing working capital needs and general partnership purposes, and (ii) a $70.0 million acquisition subfacility that may be used to finance permitted acquisitions and capital expenditures. Under the amended and restated credit facility, as of June 30, 2005, we had $11.0 million outstanding under the working capital subfacility and $63.5 million outstanding under the acquisition subfacility. On January 3, 2005, we borrowed $3.5 million under the acquisition line of credit to fund the purchase of a liquefied petroleum gas pipeline. On May 3 , 2005, we borrowed $5.0 million to fund the purchase of the operating assets of Bay Sulfur Company. As of June 30, 2005, we had $16.5 million available for working capital and $56.5 million available for expansion and acquisition activities under our revolving credit facility.

On May 3, 2005, we increased the amount eligible for borrowing under the amended and restated credit facility to $150 million comprised of (i) a $30.0 million working capital subfacility that will be used for ongoing working capital needs and general partnership purposes, and (ii) a $120.0 million acquisition subfacility that may be used to finance permitted acquisitions and capital expenditures.

On June 1, 2004, we issued a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit to the seller of the Neches terminal under an escrow agreement in order to secure our performance and to provide storage operations for a future lessee. We withheld $2.5 million of the purchase price and paid this amount into an escrow account. The escrow agreement provides that a future lessee may draw upon this escrow account upon a defined event of default or a force majeure event under the terms of the amended lease agreement. The escrow account will be paid to the seller over a two year period beginning in November 2005. We believe the likelihood of any draws under this letter of credit to be remote.

Draws made under our credit facility are normally made to fund acquisitions and for working capital requirements. During the current fiscal year, draws on our credit facilities have ranged from a low of $72.5 million to a high of $93.9 million.

Our obligations under the amended and restated credit facility are secured by substantially all of our assets, including, without limitation, inventory, accounts receivable, vessels, equipment and fixed assets. We may prepay all amounts outstanding under this facility at any time without penalty.

In addition, the amended and restated credit agreement contains various covenants, which, among other things, limit our ability to: (i) incur indebtedness; (ii) grant certain liens; (iii) merge or consolidate unless we are the survivor; (iv) sell all or substantially all of our assets; (v) make acquisitions; (vi) make certain investments; (vii) make capital expenditures; (viii) make distributions other than from available cash; (ix) create obligations for some lease payments; (x) engage in transactions with affiliates; or (xi) engage in other types of business.

The amended and restated credit agreement also contains covenants, which, among other things, require us to maintain specified ratios of: (i) minimum net worth (as defined in the credit agreement) of $65.0 million; (ii) EBITDA (as defined in the credit agreement) to interest expense of not less than 3.0 to 1.0; (iii) total debt to EBITDA, pro forma for any asset acquisition, of not more than 3.5 to 1.0; (iv) current assets to current liabilities of not less than 1.1 to 1.0; and (v) an orderly liquidation value of pledged fixed assets to the aggregate outstanding principal amount of acquisition subfacility of not less than 1.5 to 1.0. We were in compliance with the debt covenants contained in the credit facility for the year ended December 31, 2004 and as of June 30, 2005.

Seasonality

A substantial portion of our revenues are dependent on sales prices of products, particularly LPGs and fertilizers, which fluctuate in part based on winter and spring weather conditions. The demand for LPGs is strongest during the winter heating season. The demand for fertilizers is strongest during the early spring planting season. However, our terminalling and marine transportation businesses and the molten sulfur business of CF Martin Sulphur are typically not impacted by seasonal fluctuations. We expect to derive a majority of our net income from our terminalling, marine transportation and sulfur businesses. Therefore, we do not expect that our overall net income will be impacted by seasonality factors. However, extraordinary weather events, such as hurricanes, could impact our terminalling and marine transportation businesses. For example, the four hurricanes that impacted the Gulf of Mexico and Florida in the third quarter of 2004 adversely impacted our terminalling and marine transportation business’s revenues.

Impact of Inflation

Inflation in the United States has been relatively low in recent years and did not have a material impact on our results of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. However, inflation remains a factor in the United States economy and could increase our cost to acquire or replace property, plant and equipment as well as our labor and supply costs. We cannot assure you that we will be able to pass along increased costs to our customers.

Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations adopted by various governmental authorities in the jurisdictions in which these operations are conducted. We incurred no significant environmental costs, liabilities or expenditures to mitigate or eliminate environmental contamination during the six months ended June 30, 2005 or 2004. Under the omnibus agreement, Martin Resource Management will indemnify us for five years after the closing of our initial public offering, which closed on November 6, 2002, against:

	•		certain potential environmental liabilities associated with the assets it contributed to us relating to events or conditions that occurred or existed before the closing of our initial public offering, and

	•		any payments we are required to make, as a successor in interest to affiliates of Martin Resource Management, under environmental indemnity provisions contained in the contribution agreement associated with the contribution of assets by Martin Resource Management to CF Martin Sulphur in November 2000.

Risks Related to Our Business

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations include, but are not limited to, the risks set forth below. The risks described below should not be considered to be comprehensive and all-inclusive. Additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we currently think are immaterial may also impair our business operations, financial condition and results of operations. If any event occurs that gives rise to the following risks, our business, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected, and as a result, the trading price of our common units could be materially and adversely impacted. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with other information set forth in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, including our consolidated and condensed financial statements and the related notes, and our annual report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated and combined financial statements and the related notes. Many of such factors are

beyond our ability to control or predict. Investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

We may not have sufficient cash after the establishment of cash reserves and payment of our general partner’s expenses to enable us to pay the minimum quarterly distribution each quarter.

We may not have sufficient available cash each quarter in the future to pay the minimum quarterly distribution on all our units. Under the terms of our partnership agreement, we must pay our general partner’s expenses and set aside any cash reserve amounts before making a distribution to our unitholders. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common units principally depends upon the amount of net cash generated from our operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:

	•		the costs of acquisitions, if any;

	•		the prices of hydrocarbon products and by-products;

	•		fluctuations in our working capital;

	•		the level of capital expenditures we make;

	•		restrictions contained in our debt instruments and our debt service requirements;

	•		our ability to make working capital borrowings under our revolving credit facility; and

	•		the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by our general partner in its discretion.

You should also be aware that the amount of cash we have available for distribution depends primarily on our cash flow, including cash flow from working capital borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. In addition, our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and the establishment of reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders. As a result, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.

Adverse weather conditions could reduce our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our distribution network and operations are primarily concentrated in the Gulf Coast region and along the Mississippi River inland waterway. Weather in these regions is sometimes severe (including tropical storms and hurricanes) and can be a major factor in our day-to-day operations. Demand for our lubricants and the diesel fuel we throughput in our terminalling segment can be affected if offshore drilling operations are disrupted by weather in the Gulf of Mexico. Our marine transportation operations can be significantly delayed, impaired or postponed by adverse weather conditions, such as fog in the winter and spring months, and certain river conditions. Additionally, our marine transportation operations and our assets in the Gulf of Mexico, including our barges, push boats, tugboats and terminals, can be adversely impacted or damaged by hurricanes, tropical storms, tidal waves or other related events.

National weather conditions have a substantial impact on the demand for our products. Unusually warm weather during the winter months can cause a significant decrease in the demand for LPG products and fuel oil. Likewise, extreme weather conditions (either wet or dry) can decrease the demand for fertilizer. For example, an unusually wet spring can delay planting of seeds, which can leave insufficient time to apply fertilizer at the planting stage. Conversely, drought conditions can kill or severely stunt the growth of crops, thus eliminating the need to nurture plants with fertilizer. Any of these or similar conditions could result in a decline in our net income and cash flow, which would reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

If we incur material liabilities that are not fully covered by insurance, such as liabilities resulting from accidents on rivers or at sea, spills, fires or explosions, our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

Our operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks incidental to terminalling, marine transportation and the distribution of hydrocarbon products and by-products and other industrial products. These hazards and risks, many of which are beyond our control, include:

	•		accidents on rivers or at sea and other hazards that could result in releases, spills and other environmental damages, personal injuries, loss of life and suspension of operations;

	•		leakage of LPGs and other hydrocarbon products and by-products;

	•		fires and explosions;

	•		damage to transportation, terminalling and storage facilities, and surrounding properties caused by natural disasters; and

	•		terrorist attacks or sabotage.

Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to potential future claims for personal injury and property damage, including various legal proceedings and litigation resulting from these hazards and risks. If we incur material liabilities that are not covered by insurance, our operating results, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

Changes in the insurance markets attributable to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and their aftermath, may make some types of insurance more difficult or expensive for us to obtain. As a result of the September 11 attacks and the risk of future terrorist attacks, we may be unable to secure the levels and types of insurance we would otherwise have secured prior to September 11. Moreover, the insurance that may be available to us may be significantly more expensive than our existing insurance coverage.

The price volatility of hydrocarbon products and by-products can reduce our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We and our affiliates purchase hydrocarbon products and by-products such as molten sulfur, sulfur derivatives, fuel oil, LPGs, asphalt and other bulk liquids and sell these products to wholesale and bulk customers and to other end users. We and our affiliates also distribute and market lubricants. We also generate revenues through the terminalling of certain products for third parties. The price and market value of hydrocarbon products and by-products can be volatile. Our revenues have been adversely affected by this volatility during periods of decreasing prices because of the reduction in the value and resale price of our inventory. Future price volatility could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Restrictions in our credit agreement or other debt obligations may prevent us from making distributions to our unitholders.

As of August 2, 2005, we had approximately $93.9 million of indebtedness outstanding under our credit facility. In addition, we assumed $9.4 million of U.S. Government guaranteed ship bonds, maturing in 2021, in connection with our acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur. Our payment of principal and interest on our debt reduces the cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, we are prohibited by our revolving credit facility from making cash distributions during an event of default or if the payment of a distribution would cause an event of default under any of our debt agreements. Our leverage and various limitations in our revolving credit facility may reduce our ability to incur additional debt, engage in some transactions and capitalize on acquisition or other business opportunities that could increase cash flows and distributions to our unitholders.

If we do not have sufficient capital resources for acquisitions or opportunities for expansion, our growth will be limited.

We intend to explore acquisition opportunities in order to expand our operations and increase our profitability. We may finance acquisitions through public and private financing, or we may use our limited partner interests for all or a portion of the consideration to be paid in acquisitions. Distributions of cash with respect to these equity securities or limited partner interests may reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to the common units. In addition, in the event our limited partner interests do not maintain a sufficient valuation, or potential acquisition candidates are unwilling to accept our limited partner interests as all or part of the consideration, we may be required to use our cash resources, if available, or rely on other financing arrangements to pursue acquisitions. If we use funds from operations, other cash resources or increased borrowings for an

acquisition, the acquisition could adversely impact our ability to make our minimum quarterly distributions to our unitholders. Additionally, if we do not have sufficient capital resources or are not able to obtain financing on terms acceptable to us for acquisitions, our ability to implement our growth strategies may be adversely impacted.

Our recent and any future acquisitions may not be successful, may substantially increase our indebtedness and contingent liabilities, and may create integration difficulties.

As part of our business strategy, we intend to acquire businesses or assets we believe complement our existing operations. We may not be able to successfully integrate recent or any future acquisitions into our existing operations or achieve the desired profitability from such acquisitions. These acquisitions may require substantial capital expenditures and the incurrence of additional indebtedness. If we make acquisitions, our capitalization and results of operations may change significantly. Further, any acquisition could result in:

	•		post-closing discovery of material undisclosed liabilities of the acquired business or assets;

	•		the unexpected loss of key employees or customers from the acquired businesses;

	•		difficulties resulting from our integration of the operations, systems and management of the acquired business; and

	•		an unexpected diversion of our management’s attention from other operations.

If recent or any future acquisitions are unsuccessful or result in unanticipated events or if we are unable to successfully integrate acquisitions into our existing operations, such acquisitions could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Demand for our terminalling services is substantially dependent on the level of offshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activity.

The level of offshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activity has historically been volatile and is likely to continue to be so in the future. The level of activity is subject to large fluctuations in response to relatively minor changes in a variety of factors that are beyond our control, including:

	•		prevailing oil and natural gas prices and expectations about future prices and price volatility;

	•		the cost of offshore exploration for, and production and transportation of, oil and natural gas;

	•		worldwide demand for oil and natural gas;

	•		consolidation of oil and gas and oil service companies operating offshore;

	•		availability and rate of discovery of new oil and natural gas reserves in offshore areas;

	•		local and international political and economic conditions and policies;

	•		technological advances affecting energy production and consumption;

	•		weather conditions;

	•		environmental regulation; and

	•		the ability of oil and gas companies to generate or otherwise obtain funds for exploration and production.

We expect levels of offshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activity to continue to be volatile and affect demand for our terminalling services.

Our LPG and fertilizer businesses are seasonal and could cause our revenues to vary.

The demand for LPG is highest in the winter. Therefore, revenue from our LPG distribution business is higher in the winter than in other seasons. Our fertilizer business experiences an increase in demand during the spring, which increases the revenue generated by this business line in this period compared to other periods. The seasonality of the revenue from these business lines may cause our results of operations to vary on a quarter to quarter basis and thus could cause our cash available for quarterly distributions to fluctuate from period to period.

The highly competitive nature of our industry could adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We operate in a highly competitive marketplace in each of our primary business segments. Most of our competitors in each segment are larger companies with greater financial and other resources than we possess. We may lose customers and future business opportunities to our competitors and any such losses could adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental, safety and other regulatory matters. The violation of or the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations could adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our business is subject to a wide range of environmental, safety and other regulatory laws and regulations. For example, our operations are subject to permit requirements and increasingly stringent regulations under numerous environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and local laws. Our costs could increase due to more strict pollution control requirements or liabilities resulting from compliance with future required operating or other regulatory permits. New environmental regulations might adversely impact our results of operations and ability to pay distributions to our unitholders. Federal and state agencies also could impose additional safety requirements, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

The loss or insufficient attention of key personnel could negatively impact our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Additionally, if neither Ruben Martin nor Scott Martin is the chief executive officer of our general partner, amounts we owe under our credit facility may become immediately due and payable.

Our success is largely dependent upon the continued services of members of the senior management team of Martin Resource Management. Those senior executive officers have significant experience in our businesses and have developed strong relationships with a broad range of industry participants. The loss of any of these executives could have a material adverse effect on our relationships with these industry participants, our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Additionally, if neither Ruben Martin nor Scott Martin is the chief executive officer of our general partner, the lender under our credit facility could declare amounts outstanding thereunder immediately due and payable. If such event occurs, our results of operations and our ability to make distribution to our unitholders could be negatively impacted.

We do not have employees. We rely solely on officers and employees of Martin Resource Management to operate and manage our business. Martin Resource Management operates businesses and conducts activities of its own in which we have no economic interest. There could be competition for the time and effort of the officers and employees who provide services to our general partner. If these officers and employees do not or cannot devote sufficient attention to the management and operation of our business, our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders may be reduced.

Our loss of significant commercial relationships with Martin Resource Management could adversely impact our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Martin Resource Management provides us with various services and products pursuant to various commercial contracts. The loss of any of these services and products provided by Martin Resource Management could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Additionally, we provide terminalling and marine transportation services to Martin Resource Management to support its businesses under various commercial contracts. The loss of Martin Resource Management as a customer could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our business would be adversely affected if operations at our terminalling, transportation and distribution facilities experienced significant interruptions. Our business would also be adversely affected if the operations of our customers and suppliers experienced significant interruptions.

Our operations are dependent upon our terminalling and storage facilities and various means of transportation. We are also dependent upon the uninterrupted operations of certain facilities owned or operated by our suppliers and customers. Any significant interruption at these facilities or inability to transport products to or from these facilities or to or from our customers for any reason would adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. Operations at our facilities and at the facilities owned or operated by our suppliers and customers could be partially or completely shut down, temporarily or permanently, as the result of any number of circumstances that are not within our control, such as:

	•		catastrophic events;

	•		environmental remediation;

	•		labor difficulties; and

	•		disruptions in the supply of our products to our facilities or means of transportation.

Additionally, terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage could target oil and gas production facilities, refineries, processing plants, terminals and other infrastructure facilities. Any significant interruptions at our facilities, facilities owned or operated by our suppliers or customers, or in the oil and gas industry as a whole caused by such attacks or acts could have a material adverse affect on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our marine transportation business would be adversely affected if we do not satisfy the requirements of the Jones Act, or if the Jones Act were modified or eliminated.

The Jones Act is a federal law that restricts domestic marine transportation in the United States to vessels built and registered in the United States. Furthermore, the Jones Act requires that the vessels be manned and owned by United States citizens. If we fail to comply with these requirements, our vessels lose their eligibility to engage in coastwise trade within United States domestic waters.

The requirements that our vessels are United States built and manned by United States citizens, the crewing requirements and material requirements of the Coast Guard and the application of United States labor and tax laws significantly increase the costs of United States flag vessels when compared with foreign flag vessels. During the past several years, certain interest groups have lobbied Congress to repeal the Jones Act to facilitate foreign flag competition for trades and cargoes reserved for United States flag vessels under the Jones Act and cargo preference laws. If the Jones Act were to be modified to permit foreign competition that would not be subject to the same United States government imposed costs, we may need to lower the prices we charge for our services in order to compete with foreign competitors, which would adversely affect our cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our marine transportation business would be adversely affected if the United States Government purchases or requisitions any of our vessels under the Merchant Marine Act.

We are subject to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which provides that, upon proclamation by the President of the United States of a national emergency or a threat to the national security, the United States Secretary of Transportation may requisition or purchase any vessel or other watercraft owned by United States citizens (including us, provided that we are considered a United States citizen for this purpose.) If one of our push boats, tugboats or tank barges were purchased or requisitioned by the United States government under this law, we would be entitled to be paid the fair market value of the vessel in the case of a purchase or, in the case of a requisition, the fair market value of charter hire. However, if one of our push boats or tugboats is requisitioned or purchased and its associated tank barge is left idle, we would not be entitled to receive any compensation for the lost revenues resulting from the idled barge. We also would not be entitled to be compensated for any consequential damages we suffer as a result of the requisition or purchase of any of our push boats, tugboats or tank barges. If any of our vessels are purchased or requisitioned for an extended period of time by the United States government, such

transactions could have a material adverse affect on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Regulations affecting the domestic tank vessel industry may limit our ability to do business, increase our costs and adversely impact our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA 90, provides for the phase out of single-hull vessels and the phase-in of the exclusive operation of double-hull tank vessels in U.S. waters. Under OPA 90, substantially all tank vessels that do not have double hulls will be phased out by 2015 and will not be permitted to come to U.S. ports or trade in U.S. waters. The phase out dates vary based on the age of the vessel and other factors. All of our offshore tank barges are double-hull vessels and have no phase out date. We have 13 inland single-hull barges that will be phased out in the year 2015. The phase out of these single-hull vessels in accordance with OPA 90 may require us to make substantial capital expenditures, which could adversely affect our operations and market position and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Risks Relating to an Investment in the Common Units

Cash reimbursements due to Martin Resource Management may be substantial and will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Under our omnibus agreement with Martin Resource Management, Martin Resource Management provides us with corporate staff and support services on behalf of our general partner that are substantially identical in nature and quality to the services it conducted for our business prior to our formation. The omnibus agreement requires us to reimburse Martin Resource Management for the costs and expenses it incurs in rendering these services, including an overhead allocation to us of Martin Resource Management’s indirect general and administrative expenses from its corporate allocation pool. These payments may be substantial. Payments to Martin Resource Management will reduce the amount of available cash for distribution to our unitholders.

Martin Resource Management has conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary responsibilities, which may permit it to favor its own interests to the detriment of our unitholders.

Martin Resource Management currently owns approximately 52.2% of our outstanding partnership interests. This includes the ownership of our general partner which owns a 2.0% general partner interest and our incentive distribution rights. Conflicts of interest may arise between Martin Resource Management and our general partner, on the one hand, and our unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner may favor its interests and the interests of Martin Resource Management over the interests of our unitholders. Potential conflicts of interest between us, Martin Resource Management and our general partner could occur in many of our day-to-day operations including, among others, the following situations:

	•		Officers of Martin Resource Management who provide services to us also devote significant time to the businesses of Martin Resource Management and are compensated by Martin Resource Management for that time.

	•		Neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires Martin Resource Management to pursue a business strategy that favors us or utilizes our assets or services. Martin Resource Management’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to make these decisions in the best interests of the shareholders of Martin Resource Management without regard to the best interests of the unitholders.

	•		Martin Resource Management may engage in limited competition with us.

	•		Our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as Martin Resource Management, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of reducing its fiduciary duty to our unitholders.

	•		Under our partnership agreement, our general partner may limit its liability and reduce its fiduciary duties, while also restricting the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without the limitations and reductions, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing units, you will be treated as having consented to some actions and conflicts of interest

			that, without such consent, might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.

	•		Our general partner determines which costs incurred by Martin Resource Management are reimbursable by us.

	•		Our partnership agreement does not restrict our general partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered on terms that are fair and reasonable to us or from entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf.

	•		Our general partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by Martin Resource Management.

	•		Our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel or others to perform services for us.

	•		The audit committee of our general partner retains our independent auditors.

	•		In some instances, our general partner may cause us to borrow funds to permit us to pay cash distributions, even if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to make a distribution on the subordinated units, to make incentive distributions or to accelerate the expiration of the subordination period.

	•		Our general partner has broad discretion to establish financial reserves for the proper conduct of our business. These reserves also will affect the amount of cash available for distribution. Our general partner may establish reserves for distribution on the subordinated units, but only if those reserves will not prevent us from distributing the full minimum quarterly distribution, plus any arrearages, on the common units for the following four quarters.

Unitholders have less power to elect or remove management of our general partner than holders of common stock in a corporation. Unitholders do not have sufficient voting power to elect or remove our general partner without the consent of Martin Resource Management.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and therefore limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders did not elect our general partner or its directors and will have no right to elect our general partner or its directors on an annual or other continuing basis. Martin Resource Management elects the directors of our general partner. Although our general partner has a fiduciary duty to manage our partnership in a manner beneficial to us and our unitholders, the directors of our general partner also have a fiduciary duty to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to Martin Resource Management and its shareholders.

If unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they will have a limited ability to remove our general partner. Our general partner generally may not be removed except upon the vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding units voting together as a single class. Because our Martin Resource Management and its affiliates control approximately 50.2% of all our outstanding limited partner units, our general partner cannot be removed without the consent of it and its affiliates.

If our general partner is removed without cause during the subordination period and units held by our general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of removal, all remaining subordinated units will automatically be converted into common units and any existing arrearages on the common units will be extinguished. A removal under these circumstances would adversely affect the common units by prematurely eliminating their contractual right to distributions and liquidation preference over the subordinated units, which preferences would otherwise have continued until we had met certain distribution and performance tests. Cause is narrowly defined to mean that a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final, non-appealable judgment finding our general partner liable for actual fraud, gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct in its capacity as our general partner. Cause does not include most cases of charges of poor management of our business, so the removal of our general partner because of the unitholders’ dissatisfaction with our general partner’s performance in managing our partnership will most likely result in the termination of the subordination period.

Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by our partnership agreement provision prohibiting any units held by a person owning 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner, its

affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of our general partner’s directors, from voting on any matter. In addition, our partnership agreement contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.

As a result of these provisions, it will be more difficult for a third party to acquire our partnership without first negotiating the acquisition with our general partner. Consequently, it is unlikely the trading price of our common units will ever reflect a takeover premium.

Our general partner’s discretion in determining the level of our cash reserves may adversely affect our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves it determines in its reasonable discretion to be necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, our partnership agreement permits our general partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which we are a party or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that we have not complied with applicable statutes or that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

The limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly established in some states. The holder of one of our common units could be held liable in some circumstances for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that:

Ÿ		we had been conducting business in any state without compliance with the applicable limited partnership statute; or

Ÿ		the right or the exercise of the right by our unitholders as a group to remove or replace our general partner, to approve some amendments to our partnership agreement, or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business.

Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for our contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner. In addition, under some circumstances, a unitholder may be liable to us for the amount of a distribution for a period of nine years from the date of the distribution.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the remedies available to unitholders for actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by our general partner.

Our partnership agreement limits the liability and reduces the fiduciary duties of our general partner to the unitholders. Our partnership agreement also restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions that would otherwise constitute breaches of our general partner’s fiduciary duties. For example, our partnership agreement:

Ÿ		permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its “sole discretion.” This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner;

Ÿ		provides that our general partner is entitled to make other decisions in its “reasonable discretion” which may reduce the obligations to which our general partner would otherwise be held;

Ÿ		generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not involving a required vote of unitholders must be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our general partner may consider the interests of all parties involved, including its own; and

provides that our general partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us, our limited partners or assignees for errors of judgment or for any acts or omissions if our general partner and those other persons acted in good faith.

Owners of common units will be treated as having consented to the various actions contemplated in our partnership agreement and conflicts of interest that might otherwise be considered a breach of fiduciary duties under applicable state law.

We may issue additional common units without unitholder approval, which would dilute unitholder ownership interests.

During the subordination period, our general partner, without the approval of our unitholders, may cause us to issue up to 1,500,000 additional common units. Our general partner may also cause us to issue an unlimited number of additional common units or other equity securities of equal rank with the common units, without unitholder approval, in a number of circumstances such as:

Ÿ		the issuance of common units in additional public offerings or in connection with acquisitions that increase cash flow from operations on a pro forma, per unit basis;

Ÿ		the conversion of subordinated units into common units;

Ÿ		the conversion of units of equal rank with the common units into common units under some circumstances; or

Ÿ		the conversion of our general partner’s general partner interest in us and its incentive distribution rights into common units as a result of the withdrawal of our general partner.

After the subordination period, we may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of any type without the approval of our unitholders. Our partnership agreement does not give our unitholders the right to approve our issuance of equity securities ranking junior to the common units at any time.

The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

Ÿ		our unitholders’ proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;

Ÿ		the amount of cash available for distribution on a per unit basis may decrease;

Ÿ		because a lower percentage of total outstanding units will be subordinated units, the risk that a shortfall in the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution will be borne by our common unitholders will increase;

Ÿ		the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit will diminish; and

Ÿ		the market price of the common units may decline.

The control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party, and that party could replace our current management team, without unitholder consent. Additionally, if Martin Resource Management no longer controls our general partner, amounts we owe under our credit facility may become immediately due and payable.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders. Furthermore, there is no restriction in our partnership agreement on the ability of the owner of our general partner to transfer its ownership interest in our general partner to a third party. A new owner of our general partner could replace the directors and officers of our general partner with its designees and to control the decisions taken by our general partner. If, at any time, Martin Resource Management no longer controls our general partner, the lender under our credit facility may declare all amounts outstanding thereunder immediately due and payable. If such event occurs, we may be required to refinance our debt on unfavorable terms, which could negatively impact our results of operations and our ability to make distribution to our unitholders.

Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the remaining common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than the then-current market price. As a result, you may be required to sell your common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on your investment. You may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of your units. No provision in our partnership agreement, or in any other agreement we have with our general partner or Martin Resource Management, prohibits our general partner or its affiliates from acquiring more than 80% of our common units. For additional information about this call right and your potential tax liability, please read “Tax Risks – Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be different than expected.”

Martin Resource Management and its affiliates may engage in limited competition with us.

Martin Resource Management and its affiliates may engage in limited competition with us. For a discussion of the non-competition provisions of the omnibus agreement, please read “Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Overview - Omnibus Agreement.” If Martin Resource Management does engage in competition with us, we may lose customers or business opportunities, which could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our common units have a limited trading history and a limited trading volume compared to other publicly traded securities.

Our common units are quoted on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol “MMLP.” However, our common units have a limited trading history and daily trading volumes for our common units are, and may continue to be, relatively small compared to many other securities quoted on the NASDAQ National Market.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could have a material adverse effect on our unit price.

We continue to document and test our internal control procedures in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and a report by our independent auditors addressing these assessments. During the course of our testing we may identify deficiencies which we may not be able to address in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for compliance with the requirements of Section 404. In addition, if we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, as such standards are modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, we may not be able to ensure that we can conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units.

Tax Risks

The IRS could treat us as a corporation for tax purposes, which would substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to unitholders.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in us depends largely on our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this or any other matter affecting us.

If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay tax on our income at corporate rates, which is currently a maximum of 35%. Distributions to unitholders would generally be taxed again to them as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, or deductions would flow through to them. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, the cash available for distribution to unitholders would be substantially reduced. Treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to unitholders and therefore would likely result in a substantial reduction in the value of the common units.

Current law may change so as to cause us to be taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to entity-level taxation. Our partnership agreement provides that, if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to entity-level taxation for federal, state or local income tax purposes, then the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amount will be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions we take may adversely affect the market for our common units and the costs of any contest will be borne by our unitholders and our general partner.

We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes or any other matter affecting us. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from our counsel’s. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of our counsel’s conclusions or the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all our counsel’s conclusions or the positions we take. Our counsel has not rendered an opinion on certain matters affecting us. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the prices at which they trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne directly or indirectly by all of our unitholders and our general partner.

Unitholders may be required to pay taxes on income from us even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.

Unitholders may be required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state, local and foreign income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they receive no cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even the tax liability that results from the taxation of their share of our taxable income.

Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be different than expected.

If unitholders sell their common units, they will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and your tax basis in those common units. Prior distributions in excess of the total net taxable income unitholders were allocated for a common unit, which decreased their tax basis in that common unit, will, in effect, become taxable income to them if the common unit is sold at a price greater than their tax basis in that common unit, even if the price they receive is less than their original cost. A substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income to them. Should the IRS successfully contest some positions we take, unitholders could recognize more gain on the sale of units than would be the case under those positions, without the benefit of decreased income in prior years. In addition, if unitholders sell their units, they may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash they receive from the sale.

Changes in federal income tax law could affect the value of our common units.

On May 28, 2003, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was signed into law, which generally reduces the maximum tax rate applicable to corporate dividends to 15%. This reduction could materially affect the value of our common units in relation to alternative investments in corporate stock, as investments in corporate stock may be relatively more attractive to individual investors thereby exerting downward pressure on the market price of our common units.

Tax-exempt entities, regulated investment companies and foreign persons face unique tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in common units by tax-exempt entities such as individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), regulated investment companies (known as mutual funds) and non-U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations exempt from federal income tax, including individual retirement accounts and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business income and will be taxable to them. Very little of our income will be qualifying income to a regulated investment company. Distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes at the highest effective tax rate applicable to individuals, and non-U.S. persons will be required to file federal income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income.

We are registered as a tax shelter. This may increase the risk of an IRS audit of us or a unitholder.

We are registered with the IRS as a “tax shelter.” Our tax shelter registration number is 02318000009. The federal income tax laws require that some types of entities, including some partnerships, register as “tax shelters” in response to the perception that they claim tax benefits that may be unwarranted. As a result, we may be audited by the IRS and tax adjustments could be made. Any unitholder owning less than a 1% profits interest in us has very limited rights to participate in the income tax audit process. Further, any adjustments in our tax returns will lead to adjustments in our unitholders’ tax returns and may lead to audits of unitholders’ tax returns and adjustments of items unrelated to us. Unitholders will bear the cost of any expense incurred in connection with an examination of their tax returns.

We treat a purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the seller’s identity. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of the common units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units and because of other reasons, we will adopt depreciation positions that may not conform to all aspects of the Treasury regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to Unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to their tax returns.

Unitholders may be subject to state, local and foreign taxes and return filing requirements as a result of investing in our common units.

In addition to federal income taxes, unitholders may be subject to other taxes, such as state, local and foreign income taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance, or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property. Unitholders may be required to file state, local and foreign income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property and may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. We own property and conduct business in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Utah. We may do business or own property in other states or foreign countries in the future. It is your responsibility to file all federal, state, local and foreign tax returns. Our counsel has not rendered an opinion on the state, local or foreign tax consequences of an investment in our common units.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Market risk is the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices. The principal market risk to which we are exposed is commodity price risk for LPGs. We also incur, to a lesser extent, risks related to interest rate fluctuations. We do not engage in commodity contract trading or hedging activities.

Commodity Price Risk. Our LPG storage and distribution business is a “margin-based” business in which our gross profits depend on the excess of our sales prices over our supply costs. As a result, our profitability is sensitive to changes in the market price of LPGs. LPGs are a commodity and the price we pay for them can fluctuate significantly in response to supply and other market conditions over which we have no control. When there are sudden and sharp decreases in the market price of LPGs, we may not be able to maintain our margins. Consequently, sudden and sharp decreases in the wholesale cost of LPGs could reduce our gross profits. We attempt to minimize our exposure to market risk by maintaining a balanced inventory position by matching our physical inventories and purchase obligations with sales commitments. We do not acquire and hold inventory or derivative financial instruments for the purpose of speculating on price changes that might expose us to indeterminable losses.

Interest Rate Risk. We are exposed to changes in interest rates as a result of our revolving credit facility, which had a floating interest rate as of August 2, 2005. We had a total of $93.9 million of indebtedness outstanding under our credit facility at August 2, 2005. The impact of a 1% increase in interest rates on this amount of debt would result in an increase in interest expense and a corresponding decrease in net income of approximately $0.8 million annually. In addition, we assumed $9.4 million of U.S. Government guaranteed ship financing bonds, maturing in 2021, in connection with our acquisition of CF Martin Sulphur. The impact of a 1% increase in interest rates on this amount of debt would result in an increase in interest expense and a corresponding decrease in net income of approximately $0.1 million annually.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

In accordance with Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), we, under the supervision and with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief

Financial Officer of our general partner, carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of our general partner concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report, to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

As previously disclosed, in connection with our evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, we identified deficiencies, including significant deficiencies, none of which, singularly or in the aggregate, rose to the level of a material weakness. In response to those deficiencies, we identified the steps necessary to correct those deficiencies and we have or are in the process of implementing corrective actions as described below. In connection with these corrective actions, in March 2005 we began the implementation of a newly acquired accounting software package, which we expect to be fully operational in September 2005. This software will assist us in improving our controls with respect to certain deficiencies identified in our information technology controls. Included in this process is the implementation of additional security measures with respect to our information technology systems. All material corrective actions that are undertaken during 2005 will be summarized in future filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Other than the items noted above, no change occurred in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the quarter ended June 30, 2005 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to certain legal proceedings claims and disputes that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Although we cannot predict the outcomes of these legal proceedings, we do not believe these actions, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Item 6. Exhibits

(a) Exhibits. The information required by this Item 6(a) is set forth in the Index to Exhibits accompanying this quarterly report and is incorporated herein by reference.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Exhibit
Number		Exhibit Name

3.1		Certificate of Limited Partnership of Martin Midstream Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”), dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.2		First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership, dated November 6, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.3		Certificate of Limited Partnership of Martin Operating Partnership L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.3 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.4		Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Operating Partnership, dated November 6, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.2 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.5		Certificate of Formation of Martin Midstream GP LLC (the “General Partner”), dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.5 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.6		Limited Liability Company Agreement of the General Partner, dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.6 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 33-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.7		Certificate of Formation of Martin Operating GP LLC (the “Operating General Partner”), dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.7 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

3.8		Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Operating General Partner, dated June 21, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 3.8 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed July 1, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

4.1		Specimen Unit Certificate for Common Units (contained in Exhibit 3.2).

4.2		Specimen Unit Certificate for Subordinated Units (filed as Exhibit 4.2 to Amendment No. 4 to the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-91706), filed October 25, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.1		Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated October 29, 2004, among the Partnership, the Operating Partnership, the Operating General Partner, Royal Bank of Canada and the Lenders named therein (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 2, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.2		First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated May 3, 2005, among the Partnership, the Operating Partnership, the Operating General Partner, Royal Bank of Canada and the Lenders named therein (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed May 4, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.3		Omnibus Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and among MRMC, the General Partner, the Partnership and the Operating Partnership (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.4		Motor Carrier Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between the Operating Partnership and Transport (filed as Exhibit 10.4 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.5		Terminal Services Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between the Operating Partnership and MGSLLC (filed as Exhibit 10.5 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.6		Throughput Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between MGSLLC and the Operating Partnership (filed as Exhibit 10.6 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.7		Contract for Marine Transportation dated November 1, 2002, by and between the Operating Partnership and MRMC (filed as Exhibit 10.7 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.8		Product Storage Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between Martin Underground Storage, Inc. and the Operating Partnership (filed as Exhibit 10.8 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.9		Marine Fuel Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between MFSLLC and the Operating Partnership


Exhibit
Number		Exhibit Name

		(filed as Exhibit 10.9 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.10		Product Supply Agreement dated November 1, 2002, by and between MGSLLC and the Operating Partnership (filed as Exhibit 10.10 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.11		Martin Midstream Partners L.P. Long-Term Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.11 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.12		Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Sublease dated November 1, 2002, by and between the Operating Partnership and MGSLLC (filed as Exhibit 10.12 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.13		Purchaser Use Easement, Ingress-Egress Easement, and Utility Facilities Easement dated November 1, 2002, by and between MGSLLC and the Operating Partnership (filed as Exhibit 10.13 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 19, 2002, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.14		Marine Transportation Agreement, by and between the Operating Partnership and Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc., dated October 27, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.14 to the Partnership’s Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q, filed November 10, 2003, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.15		Terminalling Agreement, by and between the Operating Partnership and Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc., dated October 27, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.15 to the Partnership’s Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q, filed November 10, 2003, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.16		Asset Purchase Agreement by and among Martin Midstream Partners L.P., Martin Operating Partnership L.P. and Tesoro Marine Services, L.L.C., dated October 27, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Partnership’s Amendment No. 1 to Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 23, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.17		Amended and Restated Terminal Services Agreement by and between the Operating Partnership and MFSLLC, dated October 27, 2004 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed October 28, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.18		Transportation Services Agreement by and between the Operating Partnership and MFSLLC, dated December 23, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the Partnership’s Amendment No. 1 to Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 23, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference).

10.19		Lubricants and Drilling Fluids Terminal Services Agreement by and between the Operating Partnership and MFSLLC, dated December 23, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.4 to the Partnership’s Amendment No. 1 to Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 23, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference).

31.1*		Certifications of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2*		Certifications of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1*		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Pursuant to SEC Release 34-47551, this Exhibit is furnished to the SEC and shall not be deemed to be “filed.”

32.2*		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Pursuant to SEC Release 34-47551, this Exhibit is furnished to the SEC and shall not be deemed to be “filed.”


*		Filed herewith


	Partners’ Capital
											General
	Limited Partners										Partner
	Common					Subordinated
	Units		Amount			Units		Amount			Amount			Total
Balances – January 1, 2004		2,900,000	$	47,914			4,253,362	$	(1,996	)	$	(26	)	$	45,892
Net Income		—		2,959			—		2,980			121			6,060
Follow-on public offering		1,322,500		34,016			—		—			—			34,016
General partner contribution		—		—			—		—			754			754
Cash distributions		—		(3,739	)		—		(4,466	)		(168	)		(8,373	)


Balances – June 30, 2004		4,222,500	$	81,150			4,253,362	$	(3,482	)	$	681		$	78,349


Balances – January 1, 2005		4,222,500	$	79,680			4,253,362	$	(4,772	)	$	626		$	75,534
Net Income		—		3,161			—		3,184			129			6,474
Cash distributions		—		(4,518	)		—		(4,550	)		(186	)		(9,254	)


Balances – June 30, 2005		4,222,500	$	78,323			4,253,362	$	(6,138	)	$	569		$	72,754


	Page

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION		1

Item 1. Financial Statements		1
Consolidated and Condensed Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2005 (unaudited) and December 31, 2004 (audited)		1
Consolidated and Condensed Statements of Operations for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 (unaudited)		2
Consolidated and Condensed Statements of Capital for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 (unaudited)		3
Consolidated and Condensed Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005and 2004 (unaudited)		4
Notes to Consolidated and Condensed Financial Statements (unaudited)		5

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		14

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk		46

Item 4. Controls and Procedures		46

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION		47

Item 1. Legal Proceedings		47

Item 6. Exhibits		47

SIGNATURE

CERTIFICATIONS
Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 302
Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 302
Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 906
Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 906


	Martin Midstream Partners L.P.

	By:	Martin Midstream GP LLC
		Its General Partner

Date: August 2, 2005		By:	/s/ Ruben S. Martin

			Ruben S. Martin
			President and Chief Executive Officer