Marathon Petroleum 10-K 2017-12-31
Filed 2018-02-28. 22 sections, 688K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown · JSON
Cover and table of contents
10-K 1 mpc-20171231x10k.htm 10-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
| x | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017
OR
| ¨ | 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 001-35054
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| Delaware | 27-1284632 | |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
539 South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840-3229
(Address of principal executive offices)
(419) 422-2121
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act
| Title of Each Class | Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered | |
| Common Stock, par value $.01 | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ
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 and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer þ Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨ Emerging growth company ¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No þ
The aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2017 was approximately $26.4 billion. This amount is based on the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2017. Shares of Common Stock held by executive officers and directors of the registrant are not included in the computation. The registrant, solely for the purpose of this required presentation, has deemed its directors and executive officers to be affiliates.
There were 476,059,729 shares of Marathon Petroleum Corporation Common Stock outstanding as of February 16, 2018.
Documents Incorporated By Reference
Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement relating to its 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, are incorporated by reference to the extent set forth in Part III, Items 10-14 of this Report.
MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “MPC,” “us,” “our,” “we” or “the Company” mean Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.
Table of Contents
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Throughout this report, the following company or industry specific terms and abbreviations are used:
| ASC | Accounting Standards Codification |
| ASR | Accelerated share repurchase |
| ATB | Articulated tug barges |
| barrel | One stock tank barrel, or 42 United States gallons liquid volume, used in reference to crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons. |
| bcf/d | One billion cubic feet per day |
| DEI | Designated Environmental Incidents |
| EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) | Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization |
| EIA | United States Energy Information Administration |
| EPA | United States Environmental Protection Agency |
| FASB | Financial Accounting Standards Board |
| FCC | Fluid Catalytic Cracking |
| FERC | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
| GAAP | Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States |
| IDR | Incentive Distribution Right |
| LCM | Lower of cost or market |
| LIBO Rate | London Interbank Offered Rate |
| LIFO | Last in, first out |
| LLS | Louisiana Light Sweet crude oil, an oil index benchmark price |
| mbpd | Thousand barrels per day |
| mbpcd | Thousand barrels per calender day |
| Mcf | One thousand cubic feet of natural gas |
| mmbpcd | Million barrels per calender day |
| MMcf/d | One million cubic feet of natural gas per day |
| MMBtu | One million British thermal units per day |
| NYMEX | New York Mercantile Exchange |
| NYSE | New York Stock Exchange |
| NGL | Natural gas liquids, such as ethane, propane, butanes and natural gasoline |
| PADD | Petroleum Administration for Defense District |
| OPEC | Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries |
| OSHA | United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration |
| OTC | Over-the-Counter |
| ppb | Parts per billion |
| ppm | Parts per million |
| RFS2 | Revised Renewable Fuel Standard program, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 |
| RIN | Renewable Identification Number |
| ROUX | Residual Oil Upgrader Expansion |
| SEC | United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
| STAR | South Texas Asset Repositioning |
| TCJA | Tax Cuts and Jobs Act |
| ULSD | Ultra-low sulfur diesel |
| USGC | U.S. Gulf Coast |
| UST | Underground storage tank |
| VIE | Variable interest entity |
| VPP | Voluntary Protection Program |
| WTI | West Texas Intermediate crude oil, an oil index benchmark price |
Disclosures Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly Item 1. Business, Item 1A. Risk Factors, Item 3. Legal Proceedings, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk, includes forward-looking statements. You can identify our forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “design,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “goal,” “guidance,” “imply,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “opportunity,” “outlook,” “plan,” “position,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “prospective,” “pursue,” “seek,” “should,” “strategy,” “target,” “will,” “would” or other similar expressions that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. In accordance with “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, these statements are accompanied by cautionary language identifying important factors, though not necessarily all such factors, that could cause future outcomes to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements that relate to, or statements that are subject to risks, contingencies or uncertainties that relate to:
| • | future levels of revenues, refining and marketing margins, operating costs, retail gasoline and distillate margins, merchandise margins, income from operations, net income or earnings per share; |
| • | anticipated volumes of feedstock, throughput, sales or shipments of refined products; |
| • | anticipated levels of regional, national and worldwide prices of crude oil, natural gas, NGLs and refined products; |
| • | anticipated levels of crude oil and refined product inventories; |
| • | future levels of capital, environmental or maintenance expenditures, general and administrative and other expenses; |
| • | the success or timing of completion of ongoing or anticipated capital or maintenance projects; |
| • | business strategies, growth opportunities and expected investments |
| • | our share repurchase authorizations, including the timing and amounts of any common stock repurchases; |
| • | the adequacy of our capital resources and liquidity, including but not limited to, availability of sufficient cash flow to execute our business plan; |
| • | the effect of restructuring or reorganization of business components; |
| • | the potential effects of judicial or other proceedings on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows; and |
| • | the anticipated effects of actions of third parties such as competitors, activist investors or federal, foreign, state or local regulatory authorities or plaintiffs in litigation. |
We have based our forward-looking statements on our current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry and our company. We caution that these statements are not guarantees of future performance, and you should not rely unduly on them, as they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that we cannot predict. In addition, we have based many of these forward-looking statements on assumptions about future events that may prove to be inaccurate. While our management considers these assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, regulatory and other risks, contingencies and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from the future performance that we have expressed or forecast in our forward-looking statements. Differences between actual results and any future performance suggested in our forward-looking statements could result from a variety of factors, including the following:
| • | volatility or degradation in general economic, market, industry or business conditions; |
| • | availability and pricing of domestic and foreign supplies of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil and other feedstocks; |
| • | the ability of the members of the OPEC to agree on and to influence crude oil price and production controls; |
| • | availability and pricing of domestic and foreign supplies of refined products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, home heating oil and petrochemicals; |
| • | foreign imports and exports of crude oil, refined products, natural gas and NGLs; |
| • | refining industry overcapacity or under capacity; |
| • | changes in producer customers’ drilling plans or in volumes of throughput of crude oil, natural gas, NGLs, refined products or other hydrocarbon-based products; |
| • | changes in the cost or availability of third-party vessels, pipelines, railcars and other means of transportation for crude oil, natural gas, NGLs, feedstocks and refined products; |
| • | changes to our capital budget, expected construction costs and timing of projects; |
| • | the price, availability and acceptance of alternative fuels and alternative-fuel vehicles and laws mandating such fuels or vehicles; |
| • | fluctuations in consumer demand for refined products, natural gas and NGLs, including seasonal fluctuations; |
| • | political and economic conditions in nations that consume refined products, natural gas and NGLs, including the United States, and in crude oil producing regions, including the Middle East, Africa, Canada and South America; |
| • | actions taken by our competitors, including pricing adjustments, expansion of retail activities, the expansion and retirement of refining capacity and the expansion and retirement of pipeline capacity, processing, fractionation and treating facilities in response to market conditions; |
| • | completion of pipeline projects within the United States; |
| • | changes in fuel and utility costs for our facilities; |
| • | failure to realize the benefits projected for capital projects, or cost overruns associated with such projects; |
| • | modifications to MPLX LP earnings and distribution growth objectives; |
| • | the ability to successfully implement growth opportunities, including strategic initiatives and actions; |
| • | risks and uncertainties associated with intangible assets, including any future goodwill or intangible assets impairment charges; |
| • | the ability to realize the strategic benefits of joint venture opportunities; |
| • | accidents or other unscheduled shutdowns affecting our refineries, machinery, pipelines, processing, fractionation and treating facilities or equipment, or those of our suppliers or customers; |
| • | unusual weather conditions and natural disasters, which can unforeseeably affect the price or availability of crude oil and other feedstocks and refined products; |
| • | acts of war, terrorism or civil unrest that could impair our ability to produce refined products, receive feedstocks or to gather, process, fractionate or transport crude oil, natural gas, NGLs or refined products; |
| • | state and federal environmental, economic, health and safety, energy and other policies and regulations, including the cost of compliance with the renewable fuel standard program; |
| • | adverse changes in laws including with respect to tax and regulatory matters; |
| • | rulings, judgments or settlements and related expenses in litigation or other legal, tax or regulatory matters, including unexpected environmental remediation costs, in excess of any reserves or insurance coverage; |
| • | political pressure and influence of environmental groups upon policies and decisions related to the production, gathering, refining, processing, fractionation, transportation and marketing of crude oil or other feedstocks, refined products, natural gas, NGLs or other hydrocarbon-based products; |
| • | labor and material shortages; |
| • | the maintenance of satisfactory relationships with labor unions and joint venture partners; |
| • | the ability and willingness of parties with whom we have material relationships to perform their obligations to us; |
| • | the market price of our common stock and its impact on our share repurchase authorizations; |
| • | changes in the credit ratings assigned to our debt securities and trade credit, changes in the availability of unsecured credit, changes affecting the credit markets generally and our ability to manage such changes; |
| • | capital market conditions and our ability to raise adequate capital to execute our business plan; |
| • | the costs, disruption and diversion of management’s attention associated with campaigns commenced by activist investors; and |
| • | the other factors described in Item 1A. Risk Factors. |
We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements except to the extent required by applicable law.
PART I
Item 1. Business
Overview
Marathon Petroleum Corporation (“MPC”) has 130 years of experience in the energy business with roots tracing back to the formation of the Ohio Oil Company in 1887. We are one of the largest independent petroleum product refining, marketing, retail and transportation businesses in the United States and the largest east of the Mississippi. We are one of the largest natural gas processors in the United States and the largest processor and fractionator in the Marcellus and Utica shale regions.
Our operations consist of three reportable operating segments: Refining & Marketing; Speedway; and Midstream. Each of these segments is organized and managed based upon the nature of the products and services it offers.
| • | Refining & Marketing – refines crude oil and other feedstocks at our six refineries in the Gulf Coast and Midwest regions of the United States, purchases refined products and ethanol for resale and distributes refined products through various means, including pipeline and marine transportation, terminals and storage services provided by our Midstream segment. We sell refined products to wholesale marketing customers domestically and internationally, buyers on the spot market, our Speedway® business segment and to independent entrepreneurs who operate Marathon® retail outlets. |
| • | Speedway – sells transportation fuels and convenience products in the retail market in the Midwest, East Coast and Southeast regions of the United States. |
| • | Midstream – gathers, processes and transports natural gas; gathers, transports, fractionates, stores and markets NGLs; and transports and stores crude oil and refined products principally for the Refining & Marketing segment via pipelines, terminals, towboats and barges. The Midstream segment primarily reflects the results of MPLX, our sponsored master limited partnership. |
See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Note 10 for operating segment and geographic financial information, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Corporate History and Structure
MPC was incorporated in Delaware on November 9, 2009 in connection with an internal restructuring of Marathon Oil Corporation (“Marathon Oil”). On May 25, 2011, the Marathon Oil board of directors approved the spinoff of its Refining, Marketing & Transportation Business (“RM&T Business”) into an independent, publicly traded company, MPC, through the distribution of MPC common stock to the stockholders of Marathon Oil common stock on June 30, 2011 (the “Spinoff”). Following the Spinoff, Marathon Oil retained no ownership interest in MPC, and each company has separate public ownership, boards of directors and management. All subsidiaries and equity method investments not contributed by Marathon Oil to MPC remained with Marathon Oil and, together with Marathon Oil, are referred to as the “Marathon Oil Companies.” On July 1, 2011, our common stock began trading “regular-way” on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “MPC.”
MPLX is a diversified, growth-oriented publicly traded master limited partnership (“MLP”) formed by us in 2012 to own, operate, develop and acquire midstream energy infrastructure assets. MPLX is engaged in the gathering, processing and transportation of natural gas; the gathering, transportation, fractionation, storage and marketing of NGLs; and the gathering, transportation and storage of crude oil and refined petroleum products. On December 4, 2015, we completed the MarkWest Merger, whereby MarkWest became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX.
As of December 31, 2017, we owned a 30.4 percent interest in MPLX, including a two percent general partner interest. MPLX is a VIE because the limited partners of MPLX do not have substantive kick-out or substantive participating rights over the general partner. We are the primary beneficiary of MPLX because in addition to significant economic interest, we also have the power, through our 100 percent ownership of the general partner, to control the decisions that most significantly impact MPLX. We therefore consolidate MPLX and record a noncontrolling interest for the interest owned by the public. The creditors of MPLX do not have recourse to MPC’s general credit through guarantees or other financial arrangements. The assets of MPLX are the property of MPLX and cannot be used to satisfy the obligations of MPC.
Recent Developments
Strategic Actions to Enhance Shareholder Value
On January 3, 2017, we announced plans to significantly accelerate the dropdown of assets with an estimated $1.4 billion of MLP-eligible annual EBITDA to MPLX and to exchange our economic interests in the general partner of MPLX, including IDRs, for newly issued MPLX common units. In 2017, in connection with these plans, we contributed assets to MPLX with projected annual EBITDA of approximately $400 million for $1.93 billion of cash and approximately 31 million MPLX
common units and general partner units. On February 1, 2018, we completed the dropdown of the remaining identified assets, which included our refining logistics assets and fuels distribution services with projected annual EBITDA of approximately $1 billion, in exchange for $4.1 billion of cash and 114 million MPLX common units and general partner units.
The cash consideration for these dropdowns in 2017 and 2018 was financed by MPLX with $6.0 billion of debt. See “Other Highlights” section for additional information on MPLX debt financing in 2017 and 2018. The equity financing was funded through new MPLX common units and general partner units issued to us. Immediately following the closing of the February 1, 2018 dropdown, our IDRs were cancelled and our economic general partner interest in MPLX was converted into a non-economic general partner interest, all in exchange for 275 million newly issued MPLX common units, which resulted in us owning approximately 64 percent of the issued and outstanding MPLX common units as of February 1, 2018. These actions were designed to provide a clear valuation of our midstream platform and to provide an ongoing return of capital to our shareholders in a manner consistent with maintaining an investment-grade credit profile.
See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information on our strategic actions to enhance shareholder value. See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Note 4 for more information on the 2017 dropdowns to MPLX and Note 26 for more information on the 2018 dropdown to MPLX.
Acquisitions and Investments
Our acquisition and investment activity in 2017 was primarily focused in our Midstream segment as follows:
| • | On March 1, 2017, MPLX acquired the Ozark pipeline from Enbridge Pipelines (Ozark) LLC for approximately $219 million. |
| • | On February 15, 2017, MPLX acquired a partial, indirect equity interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL”) and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Company Pipeline (“ETCOP”) projects, collectively referred to as the Bakken Pipeline system, through a joint venture, MarEn Bakken Company LLC (“MarEn Bakken”), with Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. (“Enbridge Energy Partners”). MPLX holds, through a subsidiary, a 25 percent interest in MarEn Bakken, which equates to an approximate 9.2 percent indirect equity interest in the Bakken Pipeline system. MPLX contributed $500 million of the $2 billion purchase price paid by the joint venture. |
| • | Effective January 1, 2017, MPLX and Antero Midstream formed a joint venture, Sherwood Midstream LLC (“Sherwood Midstream”), to support the development of Antero Resources Corporation’s Marcellus Shale acreage in West Virginia. MarkWest has a 50 percent ownership interest in Sherwood Midstream. In connection with this transaction, MarkWest contributed certain gas processing plants that were under co |
Showing the first 8K of 94K characters. Open the full section
Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider each of the following risks and all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in evaluating us and our common stock. Some of these risks relate principally to our business and the industry in which we operate, while others relate to the ownership of our common stock.
Our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected by any of these risks, and, as a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline.
Risks Relating to our Business
A substantial or extended decline in refining and marketing margins would reduce our operating results and cash flows and could materially and adversely impact our future rate of growth, the carrying value of our assets and our ability to execute share repurchases and continue the payment of our base dividend.
Our operating results, cash flows, future rate of growth, the carrying value of our assets and our ability to execute share repurchases and continue the payment of our base dividend are highly dependent on the margins we realize on our refined products. The measure of the difference between market prices for refined products and crude oil, or crack spread, is commonly used by the industry as a proxy for refining and marketing margins. Historically, refining and marketing margins have been volatile, and we believe they will continue to be volatile. Our margins from the sale of gasoline and other refined products are influenced by a number of conditions, including the price of crude oil. We do not produce crude oil and must purchase all of the crude oil we refine. The price of crude oil and the price at which we can sell our refined products may fluctuate independently due to a variety of regional and global market conditions. Any overall change in crack spreads will impact our refining and marketing margins. Many of the factors influencing a change in crack spreads and refining and marketing margins are beyond our control. These factors include:
| • | worldwide and domestic supplies of and demand for crude oil and refined products; |
| • | the cost of crude oil and other feedstocks to be manufactured into refined products; |
| • | the prices realized for refined products; |
| • | utilization rates of refineries; |
| • | natural gas and electricity supply costs incurred by refineries; |
| • | the ability of the members of OPEC to agree to and maintain production controls; |
| • | political instability or armed conflict in oil and natural gas producing regions; |
| • | local weather conditions; |
| • | seasonality of demand in our marketing area due to increased highway traffic in the spring and summer months; |
| • | natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes; |
| • | the price and availability of alternative and competing forms of energy; |
| • | domestic and foreign governmental regulations and taxes; and |
| • | local, regional, national and worldwide economic conditions. |
Some of these factors can vary by region and may change quickly, adding to market volatility, while others may have longer-term effects. The longer-term effects of these and other factors on refining and marketing margins are uncertain. We purchase our crude oil and other refinery feedstocks weeks before we refine them and sell the refined products. Price level changes during the period between purchasing feedstocks and selling the refined products from these feedstocks could have a significant effect on our financial results. We also purchase refined products manufactured by others for resale to our customers. Price changes during the periods between purchasing and reselling those refined products also could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Lower refining and marketing margins may reduce the amount of refined products we produce, which may reduce our revenues, income from operations and cash flows. Significant reductions in refining and marketing margins could require us to reduce our capital expenditures, impair the carrying value of our assets (such as property, plant and equipment, inventory or goodwill), decrease or eliminate our share repurchase activity and our base dividend.
Our operations are subject to business interruptions and casualty losses. Failure to manage risks associated with business interruptions could adversely impact our operations, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Our operations are subject to business interruptions due to scheduled refinery turnarounds, unplanned maintenance or unplanned events such as explosions, fires, refinery or pipeline releases or other incidents, power outages, severe weather, labor disputes, or other natural or man-made disasters, such as acts of terrorism. For example, pipelines provide a nearly-exclusive form of transportation of crude oil to, or refined products from, some of our refineries. In such instances, a prolonged interruption in service of such a pipeline could materially and adversely affect the operations, profitability and cash flows of the impacted refinery.
Explosions, fires, refinery or pipeline releases or other incidents involving our assets or operations could result in serious personal injury or loss of human life, significant damage to property and equipment, environmental pollution, impairment of operations and substantial losses to us. Damages resulting from an incident involving any of our assets or operations may result in our being named as a defendant in one or more lawsuits asserting potentially substantial claims or in our being assessed potentially substantial fines by governmental authorities.
We do not insure against all potential losses, and, therefore, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected by unexpected liabilities and increased costs.
We maintain insurance coverage in amounts we believe to be prudent against many, but not all, potential liabilities arising from operating hazards. Uninsured liabilities arising from operating hazards, including but not limited to, explosions, fires, refinery or pipeline releases or other incidents involving our assets or operations, could reduce the funds available to us for capital and investment spending and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Historically, we also have maintained insurance coverage for physical damage and resulting business interruption to our major facilities, with significant self-insured retentions. In the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance of the types and amounts we desire at reasonable rates.
We rely on the performance of our information technology systems, the failure of which due to cyber-security threats or other risks could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are heavily dependent on our information technology systems, network infrastructure and maintain cloud applications for the effective operation of our business. We rely on such systems to process, transmit and store electronic information, including financial records and personally identifiable information such as employee, customer, investor and payroll data, and to manage or support a variety of business processes, including our supply chain, pipeline operations, gathering and processing operations, retail sales, credit card payments and authorizations at our Speedway and Marathon branded retail outlets, financial transactions, banking and numerous other processes and transactions. These information systems involve data network and telecommunications, Internet access and website functionality, and various computer hardware equipment and software applications, including those that are critical to the safe operation of our business. Our systems and infrastructure are subject to damage or interruption from a number of potential sources including natural disasters, software viruses or other malware, power failures, cyber-attacks and other events. We also face various other cyber-security threats from criminal hackers, state-sponsored intrusion, industrial espionage and employee malfeasance, including threats to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or to render data or systems unusable. To protect against such attempts of unauthorized access or attack, we have implemented infrastructure protection technologies and disaster recovery plans and continuously provide employee awareness training around phishing, malware and other cyber-attacks to help ensure we are protected against cyber risks and security breaches. While we have invested significant amounts in the protection of our technology systems and maintain what we believe are adequate security controls over personally identifiable customer, investor and employee data, there can be no guarantee such plans, to the extent they are in place, will be effective. Certain vendors have access to sensitive information, including personally identifiable customer, investor and employee data and a breakdown of their technology systems or infrastructure as a result of a cyber-attack or otherwise could result in unauthorized disclosure of such information. Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or personally identifiable information, including by cyber-attacks or other security breach, could cause loss of data, give rise to remediation or other expenses, expose us to liability under federal and state laws, reduce our customers’ willingness to do business with us, disrupt the services we provide to customers and subject us to litigation and investigations, which could have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, our applicable insurance may not compensate us adequately for losses that may occur. State and federal cyber-security legislation could also impose new requirements, which could increase our cost of doing business.
The retail market is diverse and highly competitive, and very aggressive competition could adversely impact our business.
We face strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline, diesel fuel and merchandise. Our competitors include outlets owned or operated by fully integrated major oil companies or their dealers or jobbers, and other well-recognized national or regional retail outlets, often selling gasoline or merchandise at very competitive prices. Several non-traditional
retailers such as supermarkets, club stores and mass merchants are in the retail business. These non-traditional gasoline retailers have obtained a significant share of the transportation fuels market and we expect their market share to grow. Because of their diversity, integration of operations, experienced management and greater financial resources, these companies may be better able to withstand volatile market conditions or levels of low or no profitability in the retail segment of the market. In addition, these retailers may use promotional pricing or discounts, both at the pump and in the store, to encourage in-store merchandise sales. These activities by our competitors could pressure us to offer similar discounts, adversely affecting our profit margins. Additionally, the loss of market share by our convenience stores to these and other retailers relating to either gasoline or merchandise could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The development, availability and marketing of alternative and competing fuels in the retail market could adversely impact our business. We compete with other industries that provide alternative means to satisfy the energy and fuel needs of our consumers. Increased competition from these alternatives as a result of governmental regulations, technological advances and consumer demand could have an impact on pricing and demand for our products and our profitability.
We are subject to interruptions of supply and increased costs as a result of our reliance on third-party transportation of crude oil and refined products.
We utilize the services of third parties to transport crude oil and refined products to and from our refineries. In addition to our own operational risks discussed above, we could experience interruptions of supply or increases in costs to deliver refined products to market if the ability of the pipelines, railways or vessels to transport crude oil or refined products is disrupted because of weather events, accidents, governmental regulations or third-party actions. A prolonged disruption of the ability of the pipelines, railways or vessels to transport crude oil or refined products to or from one or more of our refineries could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may incur losses to our business as a result of our forward-contract activities and derivative transactions.
We currently use commodity derivative instruments, and we expect to enter into these types of transactions in the future. A failure of a futures commission merchant or counterparty to perform would affect these transactions. To the extent the instruments we utilize to manage these exposures are not effective, we may incur losses related to the ineffective portion of the derivative transaction or costs related to moving the derivative positions to another futures commission merchant or counterparty once a failure has occurred.
We have significant debt obligations; therefore, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be harmed by a deterioration of our credit profile, a decrease in debt capacity or unsecured commercial credit available to us, or by factors adversely affecting credit markets generally.
At December 31, 2017, our total debt obligations for borrowed money and capital lease obligations were $13.4 billion, including $7.4 billion of obligations of MPLX. We may incur substantial additional debt obligations in the future.
Our indebtedness may impose various restrictions and covenants on us that could have material adverse consequences, including:
| • | increasing our vulnerability to changing economic, regulatory and industry conditions; |
| • | limiting our ability to compete and our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry; |
| • | limiting our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders; |
| • | limiting our ability to borrow additional funds; and |
| • | requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our debt, thereby reducing funds available for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, share repurchases, dividends and other purposes. |
A decrease in our debt or commercial credit capacity, including unsecured credit extended by third-party suppliers, or a deterioration in our credit profile could increase our costs of borrowing money and/or limit our access to the capital markets and commercial credit, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We have a trade receivables securitization facility that provides liquidity of up to $750 million depending on the amount of eligible domestic trade accounts receivables. In periods of lower prices, we may not have sufficient eligible accounts receivables to support full availability of this facility.
Historic or current operations could subject us to significant legal liability or restrict our ability to operate.
We currently are defending litigation and anticipate we will be required to defend new litigation in the future. Our operations, including those of MPLX, and those of our predecessors could expose us to litigation and civil claims by private plaintiffs for alleged damages related to contamination of the environment or personal injuries caused by releases of hazardous substances from our facilities, products liability, consumer credit or privacy laws, product pricing or antitrust laws or any other laws or regulations that apply to our operations. While an adverse outcome in most litigation matters would not be expected to be material to us, in class-action litigation, large classes of plaintiffs may allege damages relating to extended periods of time or other alleged facts and circumstances that could increase the amount of potential damages. Attorneys general and other government officials may pursue litigation in which they seek to recover civil damages from companies on behalf of a state or its citizens for a variety of claims, including violation of consumer protection and product pricing laws or natural resources damages. We are defending litigation of that type and anticipate that we will be required to defend new litigation of that type in the future. If we are not able to successfully defend such litigation, it may result in liability to our company that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We do not have insurance covering all of these potential liabilities. In addition to substantial liability, plaintiffs in litigation may also seek injunctive relief which, if imposed, could have a material adverse effect on our future business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
A portion of our workforce is unionized, and we may face labor disruptions that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Approximately 37 percent of our refining employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Certain hourly employees at our Canton, Catlettsburg, Galveston Bay and Texas City refineries are represented by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union under labor agreements that are due to expire in 2019. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents certain hourly employees at our Detroit refinery under a labor agreement that is also scheduled to expire in 2019. In addition, they represent certain hourly employees at Speedway under agreements that cover certain retail locations in New York and New Jersey that expire on March 14, 2019 and June 30, 2019, respectively. These contracts may be renewed at an increased cost to us. In addition, we have experienced, or may experience, work stoppages as a result of labor disagreements. Any prolonged work stoppages disrupting operations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
One of our subsidiaries acts as the general partner of a publicly traded master limited partnership, MPLX, which may involve a greater exposure to certain legal liabilities than existed under our historic business operations.
One of our subsidiaries acts as the general partner of MPLX, a publicly traded master limited partnership. Our control of the general partner of MPLX may increase the possibility of claims of breach of fiduciary duties including claims of conflicts of interest related to MPLX. Any liability resulting from such claims could have a material adverse effect on our future business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
If foreign investment in us or MPLX exceeds certain levels, MPLX could be prohibited from operating inland river vessels, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The Shipping Act of 1916 and Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which we refer to collectively as the Maritime Laws, generally require that vessels engaged in U.S. coastwise trade be owned by U.S. citizens. Among other requirements to establish citizenship, entities that own such vessels must be owned at least 75 percent by U.S. citizens. If we fail to maintain compliance with the Maritime Laws, MPLX would be prohibited from operating vessels in the U.S. inland waters. Such a prohibition could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to certain continuing contingent liabilities of Marathon Oil relating to taxes and other matters and to potential liabilities pursuant to the tax sharing agreement and separation and distribution agreement we entered into with Marathon Oil that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Although the Spinoff occurred in mid-2011, certain liabilities of Marathon Oil could become our obligations. For example, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) and related rules and regulations, each corporation that was a member of the Marathon Oil consolidated tax reporting group during any taxable period or portion of any taxable period ending on or before the effective time of the Spinoff is jointly and severally liable for the federal income tax liability of the entire Marathon Oil consolidated tax reporting group for that taxable period. In connection with the Spinoff, we entered into a tax sharing agreement with Marathon Oil that allocates the responsibility for prior period taxes of the Marathon Oil consolidated tax reporting group between us and Marathon Oil. However, if Marathon Oil is unable to pay any prior period taxes for which it is
responsible, we could be required to pay the entire amount of such taxes. Other provisions of federal law establish similar liability for other matters, including laws governing tax-qualified pension plans as well as other contingent liabilities.
Also pursuant to the tax sharing agreement, following the Spinoff we are responsible generally for all taxes attributable to us or any of our subsidiaries, whether accruing before, on or after the Spinoff. We also agreed to be responsible for, and indemnify Marathon Oil with respect to, all taxes arising as a result of the Spinoff (or certain internal restructuring transactions) failing to qualify as transactions under Sections 368(a) and 355 of the Code for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent such tax liability arises as a result of any breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or other obligation by us or certain affiliates made in connection with the issuance of the private letter ruling relating to the Spinoff or in the tax sharing agreement. In addition, we agreed to indemnify Marathon Oil for specified tax-related liabilities associated with our 2005 acquisition of the minority interest in our refining joint venture from Ashland Inc. Our indemnification obligations to Marathon Oil and its subsidiaries, officers and directors are not limited or subject to any cap. If we are required to indemnify Marathon Oil and its subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors under the tax sharing agreement, we may be subject to substantial liabilities. At this time, we cannot precisely quantify the amount of these liabilities that have been assumed pursuant to the tax sharing agreement, and there can be no assurances as to their final amounts.
Also, in connection with the Spinoff, we entered into a separation and distribution agreement with Marathon Oil that provides for, among other things, the principal corporate transactions that were required to effect the Spinoff, certain conditions to the Spinoff and provisions governing the relationship between our company and Marathon Oil with respect to and resulting from the Spinoff. Among other things, the separation and distribution agreement provides for indemnification obligations designed to make us financially responsible for substantially all liabilities that may exist relating to our downstream business activities, whether incurred prior to or after the Spinoff, as well as certain obligations of Marathon Oil assumed by us. Our obligations to indemnify Marathon Oil under the circumstances set forth in the separation and distribution agreement could subject us to substantial liabilities. Marathon Oil also agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, third parties could seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities retained by Marathon Oil, and there can be no assurance that the indemnity from Marathon Oil will be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, that Marathon Oil will be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations or that Marathon Oil’s insurers will cover us for liabilities associated with occurrences prior to the Spinoff. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from Marathon Oil or its insurers any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves. The tax liabilities and underlying liabilities in the event Marathon Oil is unable to satisfy its indemnification obligations described in this paragraph could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.
Significant acquisitions in the future will involve the integration of new assets or businesses and present substantial risks that could adversely affect our business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows.
Significant future transactions involving the addition of new assets or businesses will present potential risks, which may include, among others:
| • | Inaccurate assumptions about future synergies, revenues, capital expenditures and operating costs; |
| • | An inability to successfully integrate assets or businesses we acquire; |
| • | A decrease in our liquidity resulting from using a portion of our available cash or borrowing capacity under our revolving credit agreement to finance transactions; |
| • | A significant increase in our interest expense or financial leverage if we incur additional debt to finance transactions; |
| • | The assumption of unknown environmental and other liabilities, losses or costs for which we are not indemnified or for which our indemnity is inadequate; |
| • | The diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns; and |
| • | The incurrence of other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges. |
A significant decrease or delay in oil and natural gas production in MPLX’s areas of operation, whether due to sustained declines in oil, natural gas and NGL prices, natural declines in well production, or otherwise, may adversely affect MPLX’s business, results of operations and financial condition, and could reduce MPLX’s ability to make distributions to us.
A significant portion of MPLX’s operations are dependent upon production from oil and natural gas reserves and wells owned by its producer customers, which will naturally decline over time, which means that MPLX’s cash flows associated with these wells will also decline over time. To maintain or increase throughput levels and the utilization rate of MPLX’s facilities, MPLX must continually obtain new oil, natural gas and NGL supplies, which depends in part on the level of successful drilling activity near its facilities.
We have no control over the level of drilling activity in the areas of MPLX’s operations, the amount of reserves associated with the wells or the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, we have no control over producers or their production decisions, which are affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices, drilling costs per Mcf or barrel, demand for hydrocarbons, operational challenges, access to downstream markets, the level of reserves, geological considerations, governmental regulations and the availability and cost of capital. Because of these factors, even if new oil or natural gas reserves are discovered in areas served by MPLX assets, producers may choose not to develop those reserves. If MPLX is not able to obtain new supplies of oil, natural gas or NGLs to replace the natural decline in volumes from existing wells, throughput on MPLX pipelines and the utilization rates of MPLX facilities would decline, which could have a material adverse effect on MPLX’s business, results of operations and financial condition and could reduce MPLX’s ability to make distributions to us.
Decreases in energy prices can decrease drilling activity, production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. The prices for oil, natural gas and NGLs depend upon factors beyond our control, including global and local demand, production levels, changes in interstate pipeline gas quality specifications, imports and exports, seasonality and weather conditions, economic and political conditions domestically and internationally and governmental regulations. Sustained periods of low prices could result in producers also significantly curtailing or limiting their oil and gas drilling operations which could substantially delay the production and delivery of volumes of oil, natural gas and NGLs to MPLX’s facilities and adversely affect MPLX’s revenues and cash available for distribution to us. This impact may also be exacerbated due to the extent of MPLX’s commodity-based contracts, which are more directly impacted by changes in natural gas and NGL prices than its fee-based contracts due to frac spread exposure and may result in operating losses when natural gas becomes more expensive on a Btu equivalent basis than NGL products. In addition, MPLX’s purchase and resale of natural gas and NGLs in the ordinary course exposes MPLX to significant risk of volatility in natural gas or NGL prices due to the potential difference in the time of the purchases and sales and the potential difference in the price associated with each transaction, and direct exposure may also occur naturally as a result of MPLX’s production processes. Also, the significant volatility in natural gas, NGL and oil prices could adversely impact MPLX’s unit price, thereby increasing its distribution yield and cost of capital. Such impacts could adversely impact MPLX’s ability to execute its long‑term organic growth projects, satisfy obligations to its customers and make distributions to unitholders at intended levels, and may also result in non-cash impairments of long-lived assets or goodwill or other-than-temporary non-cash impairments of our equity method investments.
Our recently completed strategic actions designed to enhance shareholder value may not deliver the anticipated benefits.
In January 2017, we announced strategic actions designed to enhance shareholder value, including the significant acceleration of dropdowns of midstream assets into MPLX and the exchange of our economic interests in the general partner, including incentive distribution rights, for newly issued MPLX common units in conjunction with the completion of such dropdowns. On March 1, 2017, we contributed certain terminal, pipeline and storage assets to MPLX and on September 1, 2017 we contributed our joint-interest ownership in certain pipelines and storage facilities to MPLX. On February 1, 2018, we completed the dropdown of our refining logistics assets and fuels distribution services to MPLX and the exchange of our economic interests in the general partner, including incentive distribution rights, for 275 million newly issued MPLX common units. We may not be able to achieve the anticipated benefits of these actions and the market price of our common stock could decline if securities or industry analysts or our investors disagree with these strategic actions or the way we implement such actions. Accordingly, there is no assurance that these actions will be reflected in the market price of our stock to the extent currently anticipated by management.
Significant stockholders may attempt to effect changes at our company or acquire control over our company, which could impact the pursuit of business strategies and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Our stockholders may from time to time engage in proxy solicitations, advance stockholder proposals or otherwise attempt to effect changes or acquire control over our company. Campaigns by stockholders to effect changes at publicly traded companies are sometimes led by investors seeking to increase short-term stockholder value through actions such as financial restructuring, increased debt, special dividends, stock repurchases or sales of assets or the entire company. Responding to proxy contests and other actions by activist stockholders can be costly and time-consuming and could divert the attention of our board of directors and senior management from the management of our operations and the pursuit of our business strategies. As a result, stockholder campaigns could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Risks Relating to Our Industry
Changes in environmental or other laws or regulations may reduce our refining and marketing margin and may result in substantial capital expenditures and operating costs that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Various laws and regulations are expected to impose increasingly stringent and costly requirements on our operations, which may reduce our refining and marketing margin. Laws and regulations expected to become more stringent relate to the following:
| • | the emission or discharge of materials into the environment, |
| • | solid and hazardous waste management, |
| • | pollution prevention, |
| • | greenhouse gas emissions, |
| • | climate change, |
| • | characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels, |
| • | public and employee safety and health, and |
| • | facility security. |
The specific impact of laws and regulations on us and our competitors may vary depending on a number of factors, including the age and location of operating facilities, marketing areas, crude oil and feedstock sources and production processes. We may be required to make expenditures to modify operations, install pollution control equipment, perform site cleanups or curtail operations that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Because the issue of climate change continues to receive scientific and political attention, there is the potential for further legislation or regulation that could result in increased operating costs and reduced consumer demand for the traditional transportation fuels we produce, transport, store and sell. Greenhouse gas emissions regulations could be implemented, such as methods to further reduce methane emissions from our midstream assets, a carbon tax or similar effort that increases the cost of our products, thereby reducing demand. Regardless of whether climate change legislation or regulation is enacted, given the continuing global demand for oil and gas - even under various hypothetical carbon-constrained scenarios - we believe we effectively budget for prospective costs of climate regulations in our business and strategic planning and our approval of capital project allocations. Our mature governance and risk-management processes enable us to effectively monitor and adjust to physical climate-related risks. At this time, however, we cannot predict the extent to which any such legislation or regulation will be enacted and, if enacted, what its impacts upon our operations would be.
We could also face increased climate-related litigation with respect to our operations or products. Private party litigation is pending against MPC and other oil and gas companies in California state court. Although uncertain, these types of actions could increase our costs of operations or reduce the demand for the refined products we produce, transport, store and sell.
In October 2015, the EPA reduced the primary (health) ozone NAAQS to 70 ppb from the prior ozone level of 75 ppb. On November 6, 2017, the EPA finalized ozone attainment/unclassifiable designations under the new standard. The EPA has not yet designated any counties as nonattainment under the lower primary ozone standard, but such nonattainment designations could result in increased costs associated with, or result in cancellation or delay of, capital projects at our facilities. States will also be required to adopt SIPs for nonattainment areas. These SIPs may include NOx and/or VOC reductions that could result in increased costs to our facilities. We cannot predict the various SIP requirements at this time.
The EISA established increases in fuel mileage standards. The Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration and the EPA work in conjunction to establish CAFE standards and greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles that become more stringent over time. In addition, pursuant to a waiver granted by the EPA, California and other states have enacted laws that require vehicle emission reductions. Increases in fuel mileage standards and requirements for zero emission vehicles may reduce demand for refined product.
The EISA also expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) program administered by the EPA. Governmental regulations encouraging the use of new or alternative fuels could pose a competitive threat to our operations. The EISA required the total volume of renewable transportation fuels sold or introduced annually in the U.S. to reach 36.0 billion gallons by 2022. The RFS presents production and logistics challenges for both the renewable fuels and petroleum refining industries, and may continue to require additional capital expenditures or expenses by us to accommodate increased renewable fuels use. Gasoline consumption has been lower than forecasted by the EPA, which has led to concerns that the renewable fuel volumes may not be met. The 2018 renewable fuel standards were finalized and published on December 12, 2017. The final standards are lower than the statutory requirements but nevertheless result in volumes that breach the ethanol “blendwall.” The advanced biofuels
program, a subset of the RFS requirements, creates uncertainties and presents challenges of supply, and may require that we and other refiners and other obligated parties purchase credits from the EPA to meet our obligations.
Tax incentives and other subsidies have also made renewable fuels more competitive with refined products than they otherwise would have been, which may further reduce refined product margins. The tax incentives and subsidies are causing uncertainties because they have expired and been reinstituted retroactively. The biodiesel credit, for example, expired at the end of 2016 and there is uncertainty if it will be reinstituted.
On March 3, 2014, the EPA signed the final Tier 3 fuel standards. The final Tier 3 fuel standards require, among other things, a lower annual average sulfur level in gasoline to no more than 10 parts ppm beginning in calendar year 2017. In addition, gasoline refiners and importers may not exceed a maximum per-gallon sulfur standard of 80 ppm, while retailers may not exceed a maximum per-gallon sulfur standard of 95 ppm. We anticipate that we will spend an estimated $650 million between 2014 and 2019 for capital expenditures necessary to comply with these standards, which includes estimated capital expenditures of approximately $400 million in 2018-2019.
Federal, state and local legislation and regulatory initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing could delay or impede producer’s gas production or result in reduced volumes available for our midstream assets to gather, process and fractionate. While we do not conduct hydraulic fracturing operations, we do provide gathering, processing and fractionation services with respect to natural gas and natural gas liquids produced by our customers as a result of such operations. If federal, state or local laws or regulations that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such legal requirements could make it more difficult to complete natural gas wells in shale formations and increase producers’ costs of compliance.
Severe weather events may adversely affect our facilities and ongoing operations.
We have mature systems in place to manage potential acute physical risks, such as floods and hurricane-force winds, and potential chronic physical risks, such as higher ocean levels. If any such events were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations. Specifically, where appropriate, we are hardening and modernizing assets against flood and wind damage and ensuring we have resiliency measures in place, such as storm-specific readiness plans. We have incurred and will continue to incur additional costs to protect our assets and operations from such physical risks and employ the evolving technologies and processes available to mitigate such risks. To the extent such severe weather events increase in frequency and severity, we may be required to modify operations and incur costs that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Plans we may have to expand existing assets or construct new assets are subject to risks associated with societal and political pressures and other forms of opposition to the future development, transportation and use of carbon-based fuels. Such risks could adversely impact our business and ability to realize certain growth strategies.
Our anticipated growth and planned expenditures are based upon the assumption that societal sentiment will continue to enable and existing regulations will remain intact to allow for the future development, transportation and use of carbon-based fuels. A portion of our growth strategy is dependent on our ability to expand existing assets and to construct additional assets. However, policy decisions relating to the production, refining, transportation and marketing of carbon-based fuels are subject to political pressures and the influence and protests of environmental and other special interest groups. One of the ways we may grow our business is through the construction of new pipelines or the expansion of existing ones. The construction of a new pipeline or the expansion of an existing pipeline, by adding horsepower or pump stations or by adding a second pipeline along an existing pipeline, involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political, and legal uncertainties, most of which are beyond our control. The approval process for storage and transportation projects has become increasingly challenging, due in part to state and local concerns related to pipelines and negative public perception regarding the oil and gas industry. These projects may not be completed on schedule (or at all) or at the budgeted cost. In addition, our revenues may not increase immediately upon the expenditure of funds on a particular project. For instance, if we build a new pipeline, the construction will occur over an extended period of time and we will not receive any material increases in revenues until after completion of the project. Delays or cost increases related to capital spending programs involving engineering, procurement and construction of facilities (including improvements and repairs to our existing facilities) could adversely affect our ability to achieve forecasted internal rates of return and operating results, thereby limiting our ability to grow and generate cash flows.
Large capital projects can take many years to complete, and market conditions could deteriorate significantly between the project approval date and the project startup date, negatively impacting project returns. If we are unable to complete capital projects at their expected costs and in a timely manner, or if the market conditions assumed in our project economics deteriorate, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
Delays or cost increases related to capital spending programs involving engineering, procurement and construction of facilities could materially adversely affect our ability to achieve forecasted internal rates of return and operating results. Delays in making
required changes or upgrades to our facilities could subject us to fines or penalties as well as affect our ability to supply certain products we produce. Such delays or cost increases may arise as a result of unpredictable factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:
| • | denial of or delay in receiving requisite regulatory approvals and/or permits; |
| • | unplanned increases in the cost of construction materials or labor; |
| • | disruptions in transportation of components or construction materials; |
| • | adverse weather conditions, natural disasters or other events (such as equipment malfunctions, explosions, fires or spills) affecting our facilities, or those of vendors or suppliers; |
| • | shortages of sufficiently skilled labor, or labor disagreements resulting in unplanned work stoppages; |
| • | market-related increases in a project’s debt or equity financing costs; and |
| • | nonperformance by, or disputes with, vendors, suppliers, contractors or subcontractors. |
Any one or more of these factors could have a significant impact on our ongoing capital projects. If we were unable to make up the delays associated with such factors or to recover the related costs, or if market conditions change, it could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The availability of crude oil and increases in crude oil prices may reduce profitability and refining and marketing margins.
The profitability of our operations depends largely on the difference between the cost of crude oil and other feedstocks we refine and the selling prices we obtain for refined products. A portion of our crude oil is purchased from various foreign national oil companies, production companies and trading companies, including suppliers from Canada, the Middle East and various other international locations. The market for crude oil and other feedstocks is largely a world market. We are, therefore, subject to the attendant political, geographic and economic risks of such a market. If one or more major supply sources were temporarily or permanently eliminated, we believe adequate alternative supplies of crude oil would be available, but it is possible we would be unable to find alternative sources of supply. If we are unable to obtain adequate crude oil volumes or are able to obtain such volumes only at unfavorable prices, our operations, sales of refined products and refining and marketing margins could be adversely affected, materially and adversely impacting our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Worldwide political and economic developments could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
In addition to impacting crude oil and other feedstock supplies, political and economic factors in global markets could have a material adverse effect on us in other ways. Hostilities in the Middle East or the occurrence or threat of future terrorist attacks could adversely affect the economies of the U.S. and other developed countries. A lower level of economic activity could result in a decline in energy consumption, which could cause our revenues and margins to decline and limit our future growth prospects. These risks could lead to increased volatility in prices for refined products, NGLs and natural gas. Additionally, these risks could increase instability in the financial and insurance markets and make it more difficult and/or costly for us to access capital and to obtain the insurance coverage that we consider adequate. Additionally, tax policy, legislative or regulatory action and commercial restrictions could reduce our operating profitability. For example, the U.S. government could prevent or restrict exports of refined products, NGLs, natural gas or the conduct of business with certain foreign countries.
Compliance with and changes in tax laws could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to extensive tax liabilities, including federal and state income taxes and transactional taxes such as excise, sales and use, payroll, franchise, withholding and property taxes. New tax laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and regulations could result in increased expenditures by us for tax liabilities in the future and could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Additionally, many tax liabilities are subject to periodic audits by taxing authorities, and such audits could subject us to interest and penalties.
Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities or that impact our customers or the markets we serve could adversely affect our business.
The U.S. government has issued warnings that energy assets in general, including the nation’s refining, pipeline and terminal infrastructure, may be future targets of terrorist organizations. The threat of terrorist attacks has subjected our operations to increased risks. Any future terrorist attacks on our facilities, those of our customers and, in some cases, those of other pipelines,
could have a material adverse effect on our business. Similarly, any future terrorist attacks that severely disrupt the markets we serve could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.
Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock
Provisions in our corporate governance documents could operate to delay or prevent a change in control of our company, dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our capital stock or affect its liquidity.
The existence of some provisions within our restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of us that a stockholder may consider favorable. These include provisions:
| • | providing that our board of directors fixes the number of members of the board; |
| • | providing for the division of our board of directors into three classes with staggered terms; |
| • | providing that only our board of directors may fill board vacancies; |
| • | limiting who may call special meetings of stockholders; |
| • | prohibiting stockholder action by written consent, thereby requiring stockholder action to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders; |
| • | establishing advance notice requirements for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted on by stockholders at stockholder meetings; |
| • | establishing supermajority vote requirements for certain amendments to our restated certificate of incorporation and stockholder proposals for amendments to our amended and restated bylaws; |
| • | providing that our directors may only be removed for cause; |
| • | authorizing a large number of shares of common stock that are not yet issued, which would allow our board of directors to issue shares to persons friendly to current management, thereby protecting the continuity of our management, or which could be used to dilute the stock ownership of persons seeking to obtain control of us; and |
| • | authorizing the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors to increase the number of outstanding shares and thwart a takeover attempt. |
We believe these provisions protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors time to assess any acquisition proposal, and are not intended to make us immune from takeovers. However, these provisions apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition.
Our restated certificate of incorporation also authorizes us to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional and other special rights, including preferences over our common stock respecting dividends and distributions, as our board of directors generally may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of preferred stock could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock. For example, we could grant holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of our board of directors in all events or on the happening of specified events or the right to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we could assign to holders of preferred stock could affect the residual value of our common stock.
Finally, to facilitate compliance with the Maritime Laws, our restated certificate of incorporation limits the aggregate percentage ownership by non-U.S. citizens of our common stock or any other class of our capital stock to 23 percent of the outstanding shares. We may prohibit transfers that would cause ownership of our common stock or any other class of our capital stock by non-U.S. citizens to exceed 23 percent. Our restated certificate of incorporation also authorizes us to effect any and all measures necessary or desirable to monitor and limit foreign ownership of our common stock or any other class of our capital stock. These limitations could have an adverse impact on the liquidity of the market for our common stock if holders are unable to transfer shares to non-U.S. citizens due to the limitations on ownership by non-U.S. citizens. Any such limitation on the liquidity of the market for our common stock could adversely impact the market price of our common stock.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
See the detail below for the assets we own by segment. In addition, as of December 31, 2017, we were the lessee under a number of cancellable and noncancellable leases for certain properties, including land and building space, office equipment, storage facilities and transportation equipment. See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Note 24 for additional information regarding our leases.
We believe that our properties and facilities are adequate for our operations and that our facilities are adequately maintained.
Refining and Marketing
The table below sets forth the location and crude oil refining capacity for each of our refineries, which include approximately 670 tanks with total tank storage capacity of approximately 60 million barrels, as of December 31, 2017.
| Refinery | Crude Oil Refining Capacity (mbpcd)(a) | ||
| Galveston Bay, Texas City, Texas | 571 | ||
| Garyville, Louisiana | 556 | ||
| Catlettsburg, Kentucky | 277 | ||
| Robinson, Illinois | 245 | ||
| Detroit, Michigan | 139 | ||
| Canton, Ohio | 93 | ||
| Total | 1,881 |
| (a) | Refining throughput can exceed crude oil capacity due to the processing of other charge and blendstocks in addition to crude oil and the timing of planned turnaround and major maintenance activity. |
The following table sets forth the approximate number of retail outlets by state where independent entrepreneurs maintain Marathon-branded retail outlets, as of December 31, 2017.
| State | Number of Marathon® Retail Outlets | ||
| Alabama | 268 | ||
| District of Columbia | 2 | ||
| Florida | 629 | ||
| Georgia | 284 | ||
| Illinois | 285 | ||
| Indiana | 647 | ||
| Kentucky | 573 | ||
| Louisiana | 15 | ||
| Maryland | 20 | ||
| Michigan | 814 | ||
| Minnesota | 39 | ||
| Mississippi | 94 | ||
| New York | 6 | ||
| North Carolina | 224 | ||
| Ohio | 862 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 69 | ||
| South Carolina | 110 | ||
| Tennessee | 401 | ||
| Virginia | 119 | ||
| West Virginia | 114 | ||
| Wisconsin | 42 | ||
| Total | 5,617 |
The following table sets forth details about our Refining & Marketing owned and operated terminals as of December 31, 2017.
| Owned and Operated Terminals | Number of Terminals | Tank Storage Capacity (thousand barrels) | Number of Tanks | Number of Loading Lanes | ||||||||
| Light Products Terminals: | ||||||||||||
| Ohio | 1 | 495 | 13 | 4 | ||||||||
| Wisconsin | 1 | 351 | 8 | 4 | ||||||||
| Subtotal light products terminals | 2 | 846 | 21 | 8 | ||||||||
| Asphalt Terminals: | ||||||||||||
| Florida | 1 | 132 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| Illinois | 2 | 82 | 31 | 6 | ||||||||
| Indiana | 2 | 424 | 19 | 6 | ||||||||
| Kentucky | 4 | 549 | 52 | 14 | ||||||||
| Louisiana | 1 | 54 | 8 | 2 | ||||||||
| Michigan | 1 | 12 | 2 | 8 | ||||||||
| Ohio | 4 | 1,491 | 48 | 13 | ||||||||
| Pennsylvania | 1 | 494 | 12 | 8 | ||||||||
| Tennessee | 2 | 483 | 38 | 8 | ||||||||
| Subtotal asphalt terminals | 18 | 3,721 | 213 | 68 | ||||||||
| Total owned and operated terminals | 20 | 4,567 | 234 | 76 |
The following table sets forth details about our railcars as of December 31, 2017.
| Number of Railcars | |||||||||||
| Class of Equipment | Owned | Leased | Total | Capacity per Railcar | |||||||
| General service tank cars | — | 793 | 793 | 20,000-30,000 gallons | |||||||
| High pressure tank cars | — | 921 | 921 | 33,500 gallons | |||||||
| Open-top hoppers | 19 | 285 | 304 | 4,000 cubic feet | |||||||
| 19 | 1,999 | 2,018 |
Speedway
The following table sets forth the number of Speedway® convenience stores by state as of December 31, 2017.
| State | Number of Convenience Stores(a) | ||
| Connecticut | 1 | ||
| Delaware | 4 | ||
| Florida | 241 | ||
| Georgia | 4 | ||
| Illinois | 123 | ||
| Indiana | 311 | ||
| Kentucky | 147 | ||
| Massachusetts | 109 | ||
| Michigan | 305 | ||
| New Hampshire | 12 | ||
| New Jersey | 71 | ||
| New York | 235 | ||
| North Carolina | 277 | ||
| Ohio | 489 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 116 | ||
| Rhode Island | 19 | ||
| South Carolina | 52 | ||
| Tennessee | 42 | ||
| Virginia | 62 | ||
| West Virginia | 60 | ||
| Wisconsin | 64 | ||
| Total | 2,744 |
| (a) | Includes stores with commercial fueling lanes. |
Midstream - MPLX
The following tables set forth certain information relating to our crude and products pipeline systems and storage assets as of December 31, 2017.
| Pipeline System or Storage Asset | Origin | Destination | Diameter (inches) | Length (miles) | Capacity(a) | Associated MPC refinery | ||||||||
| Crude oil pipeline systems (mbpd): | ||||||||||||||
| Patoka, IL to Lima, OH crude system | Patoka, IL | Lima, OH | 20”-22” | 302 | 267 | Detroit, Canton | ||||||||
| Lima, OH to Canton, OH crude system | Lima, OH | Canton, OH | 12"-16" | 153 | 84 | Canton | ||||||||
| Catlettsburg, KY and Robinson, IL crude system | Patoka, IL | Catlettsburg, KY & Robinson, IL | 20”-24” | 484 | 515 | Catlettsburg, Robinson | ||||||||
| Detroit, MI crude system(b) | Samaria & Romulus, MI | Detroit, MI | 16” | 61 | 197 | Detroit | ||||||||
| Ozark crude system | Cushing, OK | Wood River, IL | 22" | 433 | 230 | All Midwest refineries | ||||||||
| Wood River, IL to Patoka, IL crude system(b) | Wood River & Roxana, IL | Patoka, IL | 12”-22” | 115 | 314 | All Midwest refineries | ||||||||
| St. James, LA to Garyville, LA crude system | St James, LA | Garyville, LA | 30" | 20 | 620 | Garyville, LA | ||||||||
| Inactive pipelines | 45 | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Total | 1,613 | 2,227 | ||||||||||||
| Products pipeline systems (mbpd): | ||||||||||||||
| Cornerstone products system | Cornerstone | Canton, OH | 8"-16" | 58 | 238 | Canton | ||||||||
| Garyville, LA products system | Garyville, LA | Zachary, LA | 20”-36” | 72 | 389 | Garyville | ||||||||
| Texas City, TX products system | Texas City, TX | Pasadena, TX | 16”-36” | 43 | 215 | Galveston Bay | ||||||||
| ORPL products system | Various | Various | 4”-14” | 876 | 368 | Catlettsburg, Canton | ||||||||
| Robinson, IL products system(b) | Various | Various | 10”-16” | 1,131 | 513 | Robinson | ||||||||
| Woodhaven, MI to Detroit, MI | Woodhaven, MI | Detroit, MI | 4" | 26 | 12 | N/A | ||||||||
| Louisville, KY Airport products system | Louisville, KY | Louisville, KY | 6”-8” | 14 | 29 | Robinson | ||||||||
| Inactive pipelines(b) | 140 | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Total | 2,360 | 1,764 | ||||||||||||
| Wood River, IL barge dock (mbpd) | 78 | Garyville | ||||||||||||
| Storage assets (thousand barrels): | ||||||||||||||
| Tank Farms(c) | 18,642 | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Caverns | 2,755 | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Total | 21,397 |
| (a) | All capacities reflect 100 percent of the pipeline systems’ and barge dock’s average capacity in thousands of barrels per day and 100 percent of the available storage capacity of our caverns and tank farms in thousands of barrels. |
| (b) | Includes pipelines leased from third parties. |
| (c) | MPLX owns and operates 15 tank farms and operates two leased tank farms. |
As of December 31, 2017, MPLX had partial ownership interests in the following pipeline companies.
| Pipeline Company | Origin | Destination | Diameter (inches) | Length (miles) | Ownership Interest | Operated by MPL | ||||||||
| Crude oil pipeline companies: | ||||||||||||||
| Bakken Pipeline system | Bakken/Three Forks area, North Dakota | Nederland, TX | 30" | 1,921 | 9.2 | % | No | |||||||
| Illinois Extension Pipeline Company LLC | Flanagan, IL | Patoka, IL | 24" | 168 | 35 | % | No | |||||||
| LOCAP LLC | Clovelly, LA | St. James, LA | 48” | 57 | 59 | % | No | |||||||
| LOOP LLC (LOOP)(a) | Offshore Gulf of Mexico | Clovelly, LA | 48” | 48 | 41 | % | No | |||||||
| Total | 2,194 | |||||||||||||
| Products pipeline companies: | ||||||||||||||
| Explorer Pipeline Company | Port Arthur, TX | Hammond, IN | 12”-28” | 1,830 | 25 | % | No | |||||||
| Louisville, KY to Lexington, KY(c) | Louisville, KY | Lexington, KY | 8" | 87 | 65 | % | Yes | |||||||
| 1,917 |
(a) Excludes MPC’s 10% ownership interest in LOOP.
The following table sets forth details about MPLX owned and operated terminals as of December 31, 2017. Additionally, MPLX operates one leased terminal and has partial ownership interest in two terminals.
| Owned and Operated Terminals | Number of Terminals | Tank Storage Capacity (thousand barrels) | Number of Tanks | Number of Loading Lanes | ||||||||
| Light Products Terminals: | ||||||||||||
| Alabama | 2 | 443 | 16 | 4 | ||||||||
| Florida | 4 | 3,422 | 65 | 22 | ||||||||
| Georgia | 4 | 998 | 31 | 9 | ||||||||
| Illinois | 4 | 1,275 | 34 | 14 | ||||||||
| Indiana | 6 | 3,229 | 60 | 17 | ||||||||
| Kentucky | 6 | 2,587 | 56 | 25 | ||||||||
| Louisiana | 1 | 97 | 7 | 2 | ||||||||
| Michigan | 8 | 2,440 | 73 | 26 | ||||||||
| North Carolina | 4 | 1,509 | 34 | 13 | ||||||||
| Ohio | 12 | 3,227 | 101 | 28 | ||||||||
| Pennsylvania | 1 | 390 | 12 | 2 | ||||||||
| South Carolina | 1 | 370 | 8 | 3 | ||||||||
| Tennessee | 4 | 1,148 | 30 | 12 | ||||||||
| West Virginia | 2 | 1,587 | 25 | 2 | ||||||||
| Total light products terminals | 59 | 22,722 | 552 | 179 |
The following table sets forth details about barges and towboats as of December 31, 2017.
| Class of Equipment | Number in Class | Capacity (thousand barrels) | ||||
| Inland tank barges:(a) | ||||||
| Less than 25,000 barrels | 62 | 942 | ||||
| 25,000 barrels and over | 170 | 4,985 | ||||
| Total | 232 | 5,927 | ||||
| Inland towboats: | ||||||
| Less than 2,000 horsepower | 2 | |||||
| 2,000 horsepower and over | 16 | |||||
| Total | 18 |
(a) All of our barges are double-hulled.
The following tables set forth certain information relating to our gas processing facilities, fractionation facilities, de-ethanization facilities and natural gas gathering systems as of December 31, 2017, and include capacities and throughputs related to operated equity method investments on a 100 percent basis.
| Gas Processing Complexes | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (MMcf/d)(a) | Natural Gas Throughput (MMcf/d)(b) | Utilization of Design Capacity(b) | |||||||
| Bluestone Complex | Butler County, PA | 410 | 310 | 76 | % | ||||||
| Houston Complex(c) | Washington County, PA | 520 | 495 | 95 | % | ||||||
| Majorsville Complex | Marshall County, WV | 1,070 | 905 | 85 | % | ||||||
| Mobley Complex | Wetzel County, WV | 920 | 695 | 76 | % | ||||||
| Sherwood Complex(d) | Doddridge County, WV | 1,800 | 1,480 | 102 | % | ||||||
| Cadiz Complex(e) | Harrison County, OH | 525 | 509 | 97 | % | ||||||
| Seneca Complex(e) | Noble County, OH | 800 | 475 | 59 | % | ||||||
| Kenova Complex(f) | Wayne County, WV | 160 | 108 | 68 | % | ||||||
| Boldman Complex(f) | Pike County, KY | 70 | 32 | 46 | % | ||||||
| Cobb Complex | Kanawha County, WV | 65 | 24 | 37 | % | ||||||
| Kermit Complex(f)(g) | Mingo County, WV | 32 | N/A | N/A | |||||||
| Langley Complex | Langley, KY | 325 | 101 | 31 | % | ||||||
| Carthage Complex | Panola County, TX | 600 | 399 | 67 | % | ||||||
| Western Oklahoma Complex | Custer and Beckham Counties, OK | 425 | 373 | 88 | % | ||||||
| Hidalgo System | Culberson County, TX | 200 | 199 | 100 | % | ||||||
| Javelina Complex | Corpus Christi, TX | 142 | 112 | 79 | % | ||||||
| Total | 8,032 | 6,217 | 81 | % |
| (a) | Centrahoma processing capacity of 280 MMcf/d and actual throughput of 243 MMcf/d, that exceeded MPLX’s 40 percent share of the capacity of 112 MMcf/d, are not included in this table as MPLX owns a non-operating interest. |
| (b) | Natural gas throughput is a weighted average for days in operation. The utilization of design capacity has been calculated using the weighted average design throughput capacity. |
| (c) | Approximately 35 MMcf/d of processing capacity at the Houston Complex was decommissioned during the first quarter of 2017 and will be replaced with 200 MMcf/d of processing capacity in 2018. |
| (d) | The Sherwood Complex is partially owned by Sherwood Midstream LLC (“Sherwood Midstream”), which MPLX accounts for as an equity method investment. |
| (e) | The Cadiz and Seneca Complexes are owned by MarkWest Utica EMG, L.L.C. (“MarkWest Utica EMG”), which MPLX accounts for as an equity method investment. |
| (f) | A portion of the gas processed at the Boldman plant, and all of the gas processed at the Kermit plant, is further processed at the Kenova plant to recover additional NGLs. |
| (g) | The Kermit processing plant is operated by a third party solely to prevent liquids from condensing in the gathering and transmission pipelines upstream of our Kenova plant. MPLX does not receive Kermit gas volume information but does receive all of the liquids produced at the Kermit Complex. As such, the natural gas throughput has been excluded from the total. |
| Fractionation & Condensate Stabilization Complexes | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (mbpd) | NGL Throughput (mbpd)(a) | Utilization of Design Capacity(a) | |||||||
| Bluestone Complex(b)(c) | Butler County, PA | 47 | 19 | 40 | % | ||||||
| Houston Complex(b) | Washington County, PA | 60 | 61 | 102 | % | ||||||
| Hopedale Complex(b)(d) | Harrison County, OH | 180 | 134 | 77 | % | ||||||
| Ohio Condensate Complex(e) | Harrison County, OH | 23 | 13 | 57 | % | ||||||
| Siloam Complex(f) | South Shore, KY | 24 | 14 | 58 | % | ||||||
| Javelina Complex | Corpus Christi, TX | 11 | 8 | 73 | % | ||||||
| Total | 345 | 249 | 73 | % |
| (a) | NGL throughput is a weighted average for days in operation. The utilization of design capacity has been calculated using the weighted average design throughput capacity. |
| (b) | The MPLX Houston, Hopedale and Bluestone Complexes have above-ground NGL storage with a usable capacity of 32 million gallons, large‑scale truck and rail loading. In addition, the Houston Complex has large‑scale truck unloading. MPLX also has access to up to an additional 50 million gallons of propane storage capacity that can be utilized in the Marcellus Shale, Utica Shale and Appalachia region under an agreement with a third party that expires in 2018. Lastly, MPLX has up to eight million gallons of propane storage with third parties that can be utilized in the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale. |
| (c) | Includes 33 mpbd of de-propanization only capacity. |
| (d) | The MPLX Hopedale Complex is jointly owned by Ohio Fractionation Company, L.L.C. (“Ohio Fractionation”) and MarkWest Utica EMG. Ohio Fractionation is a joint venture between MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, L.L.C. (“MarkWest Liberty Midstream”) and Sherwood Midstream (a joint venture between Markwest Liberty Midstream and Antero Midstream LLC). MarkWest Liberty Midstream and Sherwood Midstream are entities that operate in the Marcellus region, and Markwest Utica EMG is an entity that operates in the Utica regions. MPLX accounts for MarkWest Utica EMG and Sherwood Midstream as equity method investments. |
| (e) | The Ohio Condensate Complex as up to 7 million gallons of condensate storage. The Ohio Condensate Complex is partially-owned by MarkWest Utica EMG Condensate, L.L.C. MPLX accounts for Ohio Condensate as an equity method investment. |
| (f) | The MPLX Siloam Complex has both above-ground, pressurized NGL storage facilities, with usable capacity of two million gallons, and underground storage facilities, with usable capacity of 10 million gallons. Product can be received by truck, pipeline or rail and can be transported from the facility by truck, rail or barge. This facility has large‑scale truck and rail loading and unloading capabilities, and a river barge facility capable of loading barges up to 860,000 gallons. |
| De-ethanization Complexes | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (mbpd) | NGL Throughput (mbpd)(a) | Utilization of Design Capacity(a) | |||||||
| Bluestone Complex | Butler County, PA | 34 | 15 | 63 | % | ||||||
| Houston Complex | Washington County, PA | 40 | 40 | 100 | % | ||||||
| Majorsville Complex | Marshall County, WV | 80 | 45 | 99 | % | ||||||
| Mobley Complex | Wetzel County, WV | 10 | 11 | 110 | % | ||||||
| Sherwood Complex | Doddridge County, WV | 40 | 30 | 75 | % | ||||||
| Cadiz Complex(b) | Harrison County, OH | 40 | 5 | 13 | % | ||||||
| Javelina Complex | Corpus Christi, TX | 18 | 12 | 67 | % | ||||||
| Total | 262 | 158 | 72 | % |
| (a) | NGL throughput is a weighted average for days in operation. The utilization of design capacity has been calculated using the weighted average design throughput capacity. |
| (b) | The Cadiz Complex is owned by MarkWest Utica EMG, which MPLX accounts for as an equity method investment. |
| Natural Gas Gathering Systems | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (MMcf/d) | Natural Gas Throughput (MMcf/d)(a) | Utilization of Design Capacity(a) | |||||||
| Bluestone System | Butler County, PA | 227 | 165 | 73 | % | ||||||
| Houston System | Washington County, PA | 1,178 | 839 | 74 | % | ||||||
| Ohio Gathering System(b) | Harrison, Monroe, Belmont, Guernsey and Noble Counties, OH | 1,123 | 766 | 70 | % | ||||||
| Jefferson Gas System(c) | Jefferson County, OH | 1,250 | 426 | 47 | % | ||||||
| East Texas System | Harrison and Panola Counties, TX | 680 | 444 | 65 | % | ||||||
| Western Oklahoma System | Wheeler County, TX and Roger Mills, Ellis, Custer, Beckham and Washita Counties, OK | 585 | 404 | 69 | % | ||||||
| Southeast Oklahoma System | Hughes, Pittsburg and Coal Counties, OK | 755 | 525 | 70 | % | ||||||
| Eagle Ford System | Dimmit County, TX | 45 | 30 | 67 | % | ||||||
| Other Systems(d) | Various | 60 | 9 | 15 | % | ||||||
| Total | 5,903 | 3,608 | 66 | % |
| (a) | Natural gas throughput is a weighted average for days in operation. The utilization of design capacity has been calculated using the weighted average design throughput capacity. |
| (b) | The Ohio Gathering System is owned by Ohio Gathering Company, L.L.C., which MPLX accounts for as an equity method investment. |
| (c) | The Jefferson Gas System is owned by Jefferson Dry Gas, which is a joint venture between MarkWest Liberty Midstream and EMG MWE Dry Gas Holdings, LLC. MPLX accounts for Jefferson Dry Gas as an equity method investment. |
| (d) | Excludes lateral pipelines where revenue is not based on throughput. |
The following tables set forth certain information relating to our NGL pipelines and crude oil pipeline as of December 31, 2017.
| NGL Pipelines | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (mbpd) | NGL Throughput (mbpd) | Utilization of Design Capacity | |||||||
| Sherwood to Mobley propane and heavier liquids pipeline | Doddridge County, WV to Wetzel County, WV | 75 | 60 | 80 | % | ||||||
| Mobley to Majorsville propane and heavier liquids pipeline | Wetzel County, WV to Marshall County, WV | 105 | 85 | 81 | % | ||||||
| Majorsville to Houston propane and heavier liquids pipeline | Marshall County, WV to Washington County, PA | 45 | 32 | 71 | % | ||||||
| Majorsville to Hopedale propane and heavier liquids pipeline | Marshall County, WV to Harrison County, OH | 140 | 69 | 49 | % | ||||||
| Third party processing plant to Bluestone ethane and heavier liquids pipeline | Butler County, PA | 32 | 8 | 25 | % | ||||||
| Bluestone to Mariner West ethane pipeline(a) | Butler County, PA to Beaver County, PA | 35 | 15 | 43 | % | ||||||
| Houston to Ohio River ethane pipeline(b) | Washington County, PA to Beaver County, PA | 57 | 9 | 16 | % | ||||||
| Majorsville to Houston ethane pipeline(a) | Marshall County, WV to Washington County, PA | 137 | 49 | 36 | % | ||||||
| Sherwood to Mobley ethane pipeline | Doddridge County, WV to Wetzel County, WV | 47 | 30 | 64 | % | ||||||
| Mobley to Majorsville ethane pipeline | Wetzel County, WV to Marshall County, WV | 57 | 41 | 72 | % | ||||||
| Seneca to Cadiz propane and heavier liquids pipeline(c) | Noble County, OH to Harrison County, OH | 75 | 16 | 21 | % | ||||||
| Cadiz to Hopedale propane and heavier liquids pipeline(c) | Harrison County, OH | 90 | 31 | 34 | % | ||||||
| Seneca to Cadiz propane/ethane and heavier liquids pipeline(c)(d) | Noble County, OH to Harrison County, OH | 69/82 | 1 | 1 | % | ||||||
| Cadiz to Atex ethane pipeline(c) | Harrison County, OH | 125 | 5 | 4 | % | ||||||
| Cadiz to Utopia ethane pipeline(c) | Harrison County, OH | 125 | 1 | 1 | % | ||||||
| Langley to Siloam propane and heavier liquids pipeline(e) | Langley, KY to South Shore, KY | 17 | 12 | 71 | % | ||||||
| East Texas liquids pipeline | Panola County, TX | 39 | 22 | 56 | % |
| (a) | This pipeline is FERC-regulated. |
| (b) | This is the section of the Mariner West pipeline, which is FERC-regulated, leased to and operated by Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. |
| (c) | This pipeline is owned by MarkWest Utica EMG, which MPLX accounts for as an equity method investment. |
| (d) | This is the same pipeline from Seneca to Cadiz and can only be used for either ethane and heavier liquids or propane and heavier liquids at one time. Both throughput capacities are listed above, respectively, with ethane included in the total. |
| (e) | NGLs transported through the Langley to Ranger and Ranger to Kenova pipelines are combined with NGLs recovered at the Kenova facility. The design capacity and volume reported for the Langley to Siloam pipeline represent the combined NGL stream. |
| Crude Oil Pipeline | Location | Design Throughput Capacity (mbpd) | NGL Throughput (mbpd) | Utilization of Design Capacity | |||||||
| Michigan crude pipeline | Manistee County, MI to Crawford County, MI | 60 | 10 | 17 | % |
Midstream - MPC-Retained Assets and Investments
The following tables set forth certain information related to our crude and products pipeline systems not owned by MPLX.
As of December 31, 2017, we owned undivided joint interests in the following common carrier crude oil pipeline systems.
| Pipeline System | Origin | Destination | Diameter (inches) | Length (miles) | Ownership Interest | Operated by MPL | ||||||||
| Capline | St. James, LA | Patoka, IL | 40" | 644 | 33 | % | Yes | |||||||
| Maumee | Lima, OH | Samaria, MI | 22" | 95 | 26 | % | No | |||||||
| Total | 739 |
As of December 31, 2017, we had partial ownership interests in the following pipeline companies.
| Pipeline Company | Origin | Destination | Diameter (inches) | Length (miles) | Ownership Interest | Operated by MPL | ||||||||
| Crude oil pipeline companies: | ||||||||||||||
| LOOP(a) | Offshore Gulf of Mexico | Clovelly, LA | 48” | 48 | 10 | % | No | |||||||
| Products pipeline companies: | ||||||||||||||
| Ascension Pipeline Company LLC | Riverside, LA | Garyville, LA | 12" | 32 | 50 | % | No | |||||||
| Centennial Pipeline LLC(b) | Beaumont, TX | Bourbon, IL | 24”-26” | 796 | 50 | % | Yes | |||||||
| Muskegon Pipeline LLC | Griffith, IN | Muskegon, MI | 10” | 170 | 60 | % | Yes | |||||||
| Wolverine Pipe Line Company | Chicago, IL | Bay City & Ferrysburg, MI | 6”-18” | 743 | 6 | % | No | |||||||
| Total | 1,741 |
| (a) | Represents interest retained by MPC and excludes MPLX’s 41% ownership interest in LOOP. Pipeline mileage is excluded from total as it is included with MPLX assets. |
| (b) | All system pipeline miles are inactive. |
The following table provides information on private crude oil pipelines and private products pipelines that we own as of December 31, 2017.
| Private Pipeline Systems | Diameter (inches) | Length (miles) | Capacity (mbpd) | |||||
| Crude oil pipeline systems: | ||||||||
| Inactive pipelines | 9 | N/A | ||||||
| Products pipeline systems: | ||||||||
| Illinois pipeline systems | 4”-8” | 118 | 39 | |||||
| Texas pipeline systems | 8” | 103 | 45 | |||||
| Inactive pipelines | 7 | N/A | ||||||
| Total | 228 | 84 |
The following table sets forth details about the assets held by two ocean vessel joint ventures in which we hold a 50% interest as of December 31, 2017.
| Class of Equipment | Number in Class | Capacity (thousand barrels) | ||||
| Jones Act product tankers(a) | 4 | 1,320 | ||||
| 750 Series ATB vessels(b) | 3 | 990 |
| (a) | Represents ownership through our indirect noncontrolling interest in Crowley Ocean Partners. |
| (b) | Represents ownership through our indirect noncontrolling interest in Crowley Blue Water Partners. |
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are the subject of, or a party to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions, contingencies and commitments involving a variety of matters, including laws and regulations relating to the environment. Some of these matters are discussed below.
Litigation
We are a party to a number of lawsuits and other proceedings and cannot predict the outcome of every such matter with certainty. While it is possible that an adverse result in one or more of the lawsuits or proceedings in which we are a defendant could be material to us, based upon current information and our experience as a defendant in other matters, we believe that these lawsuits and proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
MPLX, MarkWest, MarkWest Liberty Midstream, MarkWest Liberty Bluestone, L.L.C., Ohio Fractionation and MarkWest Utica EMG (collectively, the “MPLX Parties”) are parties to various lawsuits with Bilfinger Westcon, Inc. (“Westcon”) that were instituted in 2016 and 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, Pennsylvania, the Circuit Court in Wetzel County, West Virginia, and the Court of Common Pleas in Harrison County, Ohio. The lawsuits relate to disputes regarding construction work performed by Westcon at the Bluestone, Mobley and Cadiz processing complexes in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, respectively, and the Hopedale fractionation complex in Ohio. With respect to work performed by Westcon at the Mobley and Bluestone processing complexes, one or more of the MPLX Parties have asserted breach of contract, fraud, and with respect to work performed at the Mobley processing complex, MarkWest Liberty Midstream has also asserted negligent misrepresentation claims against Westcon. Weston has also asserted claims against one or more of the MPLX Parties regarding these construction projects for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, fraud and constructive fraud, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. The MPLX Parties seek in excess of $10 million, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. Westcon seeks in excess of $40 million, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. While the ultimate outcome and impact cannot be predicted with certainty, and management is not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of loss, if any, for these claims, we believe the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In May 2015, the Kentucky attorney general filed a lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Marathon Petroleum Company LP (“MPC LP”), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky asserting claims under federal and state antitrust statutes, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and state common law. The complaint, as amended in July 2015, alleges that MPC LP used deed restrictions, supply agreements with customers and exchange agreements with competitors to unreasonably restrain trade in areas within Kentucky and seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, civil penalties, restitution and disgorgement of profits. At this stage, the ultimate outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, can be determined, and we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss (or range of loss) for this matter. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.
In May 2007, the Kentucky attorney general filed a lawsuit against us and Marathon Oil in state court in Franklin County, Kentucky for alleged violations of Kentucky’s emergency pricing and consumer protection laws following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The lawsuit alleges that we overcharged customers by $89 million during September and October 2005. The complaint seeks disgorgement of these sums, as well as penalties, under Kentucky’s emergency pricing and consumer protection laws. We are vigorously defending this litigation. We believe that this is the first lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief under the Kentucky emergency pricing laws to progress this far and it contains many novel issues. In May 2011, the Kentucky attorney general amended his complaint to include a request for immediate injunctive relief as well as unspecified damages and penalties related to our wholesale gasoline pricing in April and May 2011 under statewide price controls that were activated by the Kentucky governor on April 26, 2011 and which have since expired. The court denied the attorney general’s request for immediate injunctive relief, and the remainder of the 2011 claims likely will be resolved along with those dating from 2005. If the lawsuit is resolved unfavorably in its entirety, it could materially impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, management does not believe the ultimate resolution of this litigation will have a material adverse effect.
Environmental Proceedings
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) initiated an enforcement action against Marathon Pipe Line LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX (“MPL”), in connection with an April 17, 2016 pipeline release to the Wabash River near Crawleyville, Indiana. MPL responded to a Clean Water Act request for information from the EPA in furtherance of its investigation of possible violations arising from the April 17, 2016 pipeline release. MPL has entered into joint settlement negotiations with the IEPA and the EPA and reached a settlement in principle for payment of a total civil penalty of $335,000.
On December 22, 2017, we entered into a settlement with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in connection with alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at our Canton, Ohio refinery. In accordance with the settlement, we paid a penalty of $250,000.
In July 2015, representatives from the EPA and the United States Department of Justice conducted a search at a MarkWest Liberty Midstream pipeline launcher/receiver site utilized for pipeline maintenance operations in Washington County, Pennsylvania pursuant to a search warrant. The criminal investigation ended without any charges against MarkWest Liberty Midstream. With respect to the civil enforcement allegations associated with permitting or other related regulatory obligations for its launcher/receiver and compressor station facilities in the region, MarkWest Liberty Midstream and its affiliates have agreed in principle to pay a cash penalty of approximately $0.6 million and to undertake certain supplemental environmental projects with an estimated cost of approximately $2.4 million.
We are involved in a number of other environmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate outcome and impact on us cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the resolution of these environmental proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Our common stock is listed on the NYSE and traded under the symbol “MPC.” As of February 16, 2018, there were 32,545 registered holders of our common stock.
The following table reflects intraday high and low sales prices of and dividends declared on our common stock by quarter:
| 2017 | 2016 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dollars per share | High Price | Low Price | Dividends | High Price | Low Price | Dividends | |||||||||||||||||
| Quarter 1 | $ | 54.59 | $ | 46.88 | $ | 0.36 | $ | 52.83 | $ | 29.24 | $ | 0.32 | |||||||||||
| Quarter 2 | 55.20 | 47.78 | 0.36 | 43.26 | 32.02 | 0.32 | |||||||||||||||||
| Quarter 3 | 56.81 | 49.30 | 0.40 | 44.56 | 35.16 | 0.36 | |||||||||||||||||
| Quarter 4 | 67.07 | 55.25 | 0.40 | 51.15 | 40.01 | 0.36 | |||||||||||||||||
| Year | 67.07 | 46.88 | 1.52 | 52.83 | 29.24 | 1.36 |
Dividends
Our board of directors intends to declare and pay dividends on our common stock based on our financial condition and consolidated results of operations. On January 29, 2018, we announced that our board of directors approved a 46 cent per share dividend, payable March 12, 2018 to shareholders of record at the close of business on February 21, 2018.
Dividends on our common stock are limited to our legally available funds.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
The following table sets forth a summary of our purchases during the quarter ended December 31, 2017, of equity securities that are registered by MPC pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended:
| Period | Total Number of Shares Purchased(a) | Average Price Paid per Share(b) | Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs | Maximum Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs(c) | |||||||||
| 10/01/17-10/31/17 | 9,750,623 | $ | 56.43 | 9,746,982 | $ | 3,391,603,964 | |||||||
| 11/01/17-11/30/17 | 1,784,657 | 62.03 | 1,784,530 | 3,280,906,366 | |||||||||
| 12/01/17-12/31/17 | 1,429,515 | 62.78 | 1,423,324 | 3,191,552,142 | |||||||||
| Total | 12,964,795 | 57.90 | 12,954,836 |
| (a) | The amounts in this column include 3,641, 127 and 6,191 shares of our common stock delivered by employees to MPC, upon vesting of restricted stock, to satisfy tax withholding requirements in October, November and December, respectively. |
| (b) | Amounts in this column reflect the weighted average price paid for shares purchased under our share repurchase authorizations and for shares tendered to us in satisfaction of employee tax withholding obligations upon the vesting of restricted stock granted under our stock plans. The weighted average price includes commissions paid to brokers on shares purchased under our share repurchase authorizations. |
| (c) | On May 31, 2017, we announced that our board of directors had approved a $3.0 billion share repurchase authorization and extended the remaining balance under the previous repurchase authorization announced on July 30, 2015, with both such outstanding authorizations having no expiration date. These authorizations, together with prior authorizations, result in a total of $13.0 billion of share repurchase authorizations since January 1, 2012. |
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following table should be read in conjunction with Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
| Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
| (In millions, except per share data) | 2017(a) | 2016 | 2015(b) | 2014(b) | 2013(b) | ||||||||||||||
| Statements of Income Data | |||||||||||||||||||
| Revenues | $ | 74,733 | $ | 63,339 | $ | 72,051 | $ | 97,817 | $ | 100,160 | |||||||||
| Income from operations | 3,969 | 2,378 | 4,692 | 4,051 | 3,425 | ||||||||||||||
| Net income | 3,804 | 1,213 | 2,868 | 2,555 | 2,133 | ||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to MPC | 3,432 | 1,174 | 2,852 | 2,524 | 2,112 | ||||||||||||||
| Per Share Data(c) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to MPC per share: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 6.76 | $ | 2.22 | $ | 5.29 | $ | 4.42 | $ | 3.34 | |||||||||
| Diluted | $ | 6.70 | $ | 2.21 | $ | 5.26 | $ | 4.39 | $ | 3.32 | |||||||||
| Dividends per share | $ | 1.52 | $ | 1.36 | $ | 1.14 | $ | 0.92 | $ | 0.77 | |||||||||
| Statements of Cash Flows Data | |||||||||||||||||||
| Net cash provided by operating activities | $ | 6,609 | $ | 3,995 | $ | 4,073 | $ | 3,121 | $ | 3,413 | |||||||||
| Additions to property, plant and equipment | 2,732 | 2,892 | 1,998 | 1,480 | 1,206 | ||||||||||||||
| Acquisitions, net of cash acquired(b) | 249 | — | 1,218 | 2,821 | 1,515 | ||||||||||||||
| Investments - acquisitions, loans and contributions | 805 | 288 | 331 | 413 | 151 | ||||||||||||||
| Common stock repurchased | 2,372 | 197 | 965 | 2,131 | 2,793 | ||||||||||||||
| Dividends paid | 773 | 719 | 613 | 524 | 484 |
| December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
| (In millions) | 2017 | 2016 | 2015(b) | 2014(b) | 2013(b) | ||||||||||||||
| Balance Sheets Data | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 49,047 | $ | 44,413 | $ | 43,115 | $ | 30,425 | $ | 28,367 | |||||||||
| Long-term debt, including capitalized leases(d) | 12,946 | 10,572 | 11,925 | 6,602 | 3,378 | ||||||||||||||
| Noncontrolling interests | 6,795 | 6,646 | 6,438 | 639 | 412 | ||||||||||||||
| Total equity | 20,828 | 20,203 | 19,675 | 11,390 | 11,332 |
| (a) | Earnings for 2017 include a tax benefit of approximately $1.5 billion or $2.93 per diluted share as a result of re-measuring certain net deferred tax liabilities using the lower corporate tax rate enacted in the fourth quarter 2017. |
| (b) | On December 4, 2015, MPLX, our consolidated subsidiary, merged with MarkWest. On September 30, 2014, we acquired Hess’ Retail Operations and Related Assets. On February 1, 2013, we acquired the Galveston Bay Refinery and Related Assets. The financial results for these operations are included in our consolidated results from the date of acquisition. |
| (c) | The number of weighted average shares reflect the impacts of shares of common stock repurchased under our share repurchase plans. |
| (d) | Includes amounts due within one year. During 2017, MPLX issued $2.25 billion aggregate principal amount of senior notes and used the net proceeds to fund the $1.5 billion cash portion of the consideration paid to MPC for the dropdown of assets on March 1, 2017. During 2015, in connection with the MarkWest Merger, MPLX assumed MarkWest Senior Notes with an aggregate principal amount of $4.1 billion and used its credit facility to repay $850 million of the $943 million of borrowings under MarkWest’s credit facility. During 2014, we issued $1.95 billion aggregate principal amount of senior notes and entered into a $700 million term loan agreement to fund a portion of the Hess’ Retail Operations and Related Assets acquisition. |
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should be read in conjunction with the information included under Item 1. Business, Item 1A. Risk Factors, Item 6. Selected Financial Data and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations includes various forward-looking statements concerning trends or events potentially affecting our business. You can identify our forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “design,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “goal,” “guidance,” “imply,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “opportunity,” “outlook,” “plan,” “position,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “prospective,” “pursue,” “seek,” “should,” “strategy,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or other similar expressions that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. In accordance with “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, these statements are accompanied by cautionary language identifying important factors, though not necessarily all such factors, which could cause future outcomes to differ materially from those set forth in forward-looking statements.
Corporate Overview
We are an independent petroleum refining and marketing, retail and midstream company. Overall, we are one of the largest independent petroleum product refining, marketing, retail and transportation businesses in the United States and the largest east of the Mississippi.
We currently own and operate six refineries, all located in the United States, with an aggregate crude oil refining capacity of approximately 1.9 mmbpcd. Our refineries supply refined products to resellers and consumers within our market areas, including the Midwest, Northeast, East Coast, Southeast and Gulf Coast regions of the United States. We distribute refined products to our customers through pipeline and marine transportation, terminals and storage services provided by our Midstream segment. We are one of the largest wholesale suppliers of gasoline and distillates to resellers within our market area.
We have two strong retail brands: Speedway® and Marathon®. We believe that Speedway LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary, operates the second largest chain of company-owned and operated retail gasoline and convenience stores in the United States, with approximately 2,740 convenience stores in 21 states throughout the Midwest, East Coast and Southeast. The Marathon brand is an established motor fuel brand in the Midwest and Southeast regions of the United States, and is available through approximately 5,600 retail outlets operated by independent entrepreneurs in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Through our ownership interests in MPLX, we are one of the largest processors of natural gas in the United States and the largest processor and fractionator in the Marcellus and Utica shale regions. Our integrated midstream energy asset network links producers of natural gas and NGLs from some of the largest supply basins in the United States to domestic and international markets. Our midstream gathering and processing operations include: natural gas gathering, processing and transportation; and NGL gathering, transportation, fractionation, storage and marketing. Our assets include approximately 5.9 bcf/d of gathering capacity, 8.0 bcf/d of natural gas processing capacity and 610 mbpd of fractionation capacity as of December 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2017, we owned, leased or had ownership interests in approximately 10,800 miles of crude oil and refined product pipelines to deliver crude oil to our refineries and other locations and refined products to wholesale and retail market areas. We distribute our refined products through one of the largest terminal operations in the United States and one of the largest private domestic fleets of inland petroleum product barges.
In the first quarter of 2017, we revised our segment reporting in connection with the contribution of certain terminal, pipeline and storage assets to MPLX. The operating results for these assets are now reported in our Midstream segment. Previously, they were reported as part of our Refining & Marketing segment. Comparable prior period information has been recast to reflect our revised presentation. The results for the pipeline and storage assets were recast effective January 1, 2015 and the results for the terminal assets were recast effective April 1, 2016. Prior to these dates, these assets were not considered businesses for accounting purposes and, therefore, there are no financial results from which to recast segment results.
Our operations consist of three reportable operating segments: Refining & Marketing; Speedway; and Midstream. Each of these segments is organized and managed based upon the nature of the products and services they offer. See Item 1. Business for additional information on our segments.
| • | Refining & Marketing – refines crude oil and other feedstocks at our six refineries in the Gulf Coast and Midwest regions of the United States, purchases refined products and ethanol for resale and distributes refined products through various means, including pipeline and marine transportation, terminals and storage services provided by our Midstream segment. We sell refined products to wholesale marketing customers domestically and internationally, buyers on the spot market, our Speedway business segment and independent entrepreneurs who operate Marathon® retail outlets. |
| • | Speedway – sells transportation fuels and convenience products in the retail market in the Midwest, East Coast and Southeast. |
| • | Midstream – gathers, processes and transports natural gas; gathers, transports, fractionates, stores and markets NGLs; and transports and stores crude oil and refined products principally for the Refining & Marketing segment via pipelines, terminals, towboats and barges. The Midstream segment primarily reflects the results of MPLX, our sponsored master limited partnership. |
Strategic Actions to Enhance Shareholder Value
On January 3, 2017, we announced plans to significantly accelerate the dropdown of assets with an estimated $1.4 billion of MLP-eligible annual EBITDA to MPLX and to exchange our economic interests in the general partner of MPLX, including IDRs, for newly issued MPLX common units. In 2017, in connection with these plans, we contributed assets to MPLX with projected annual EBITDA of approximately $400 million for $1.93 billion of cash and approximately 31 million MPLX common units and general partner units. See “MPLX LP - MPLX Highlights” for information on these dropdowns. On February 1, 2018, we completed the dropdown of the remaining identified assets, which included our refining logistics assets and fuels distribution services with projected annual EBITDA of approximately $1 billion, in exchange for $4.1 billion of cash and 114 million MPLX common units and general partner units.
The cash consideration for these dropdowns in 2017 and 2018 was financed by MPLX with $6.0 billion of debt. See “MPLX Highlights” section for additional information on MPLX debt financing in 2017 and 2018. The equity financing was funded through new MPLX common units and general partner units issued to us. Immediately following the closing of the February 1, 2018 dropdown, our IDRs were cancelled and our economic general partner interest was converted into a non-economic general partner interest, all in exchange for 275 million newly issued MPLX common units, which resulted in us owning approximately 64 percent of the issued and outstanding MPLX common units as of February 1, 2018. These actions were designed to provide a clear valuation of our midstream platform and to provide an ongoing return of capital to our shareholders in a manner consistent with maintaining an i
Showing the first 8K of 145K characters. Open the full section
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
General
We are exposed to market risks related to the volatility of crude oil and refined product prices. We employ various strategies, including the use of commodity derivative instruments, to hedge the risks related to these price fluctuations. We are also exposed to market risks related to changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. As of December 31, 2017, we did not have any financial derivative instruments to hedge the risks related to interest rate fluctuations; however, we have used them in the past, and we continually monitor the market and our exposure and may enter into these agreements again in the future. We are at risk for changes in fair value of all of our derivative instruments; however, such risk should be mitigated by price or rate changes related to the underlying commodity or financial transaction.
We believe that our use of derivative instruments, along with our risk assessment procedures and internal controls, does not expose us to material adverse consequences. While the use of derivative instruments could materially affect our results of operations in particular quarterly or annual periods, we believe that the use of these instruments will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or liquidity.
See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Notes 17 and 18 for more information about the fair value measurement of our derivatives, as well as the amounts recorded in our consolidated balance sheets and statements of income. We do not designate any of our commodity derivative instruments as hedges for accounting purposes.
Commodity Price Risk
Refining & Marketing
Our strategy is to obtain competitive prices for our products and allow operating results to reflect market price movements dictated by supply and demand. We use a variety of commodity derivative instruments, including futures and options, as part of an overall program to hedge commodity price risk. We also authorize the use of the market knowledge gained from these activities to do a limited amount of trading not directly related to our physical transactions.
We use commodity derivative instruments on crude oil and refined product inventories to hedge price risk associated with inventories above or below LIFO inventory targets. We also use derivative instruments related to the acquisition of foreign-sourced crude oil and ethanol blended with refined petroleum products to hedge price risk associated with market volatility between the time we purchase the product and when we use it in the refinery production process or it is blended. In addition, we may use commodity derivative instruments on fixed price contracts for the sale of refined products to hedge risk by converting the refined product sales to market-based prices. The majority of these derivatives are exchange-traded contracts. We closely monitor and hedge our exposure to market risk on a daily basis in accordance with policies approved by our board of directors. Our positions are monitored daily by a risk control group to ensure compliance with our stated risk management policy.
Midstream
NGL and natural gas prices are volatile and are impacted by changes in fundamental supply and demand, as well as market uncertainty, availability of NGL transportation and fractionation capacity and a variety of additional factors that are beyond MPLX’s control. A portion of MPLX’s profitability is directly affected by prevailing commodity prices primarily as a result of processing or conditioning at its own or third‑party processing plants, purchasing and selling or gathering and transporting volumes of natural gas at index‑related prices and the cost of third‑party transportation and fractionation services. To the extent that commodity prices influence the level of natural gas drilling by MPLX’s producer customers, such prices also indirectly affect profitability. MPLX has a committee comprised of senior management that oversees risk management activities, continually monitors the risk management program and adjusts its strategy as conditions warrant. Derivative contracts utilized for crude oil, natural gas and NGLs are swaps and options traded on the OTC market and fixed price forward contracts. As a result of MPLX’s current derivative positions, it believes that it has mitigated a portion of its expected commodity price risk through the fourth quarter of 2018. MPLX would be exposed to additional commodity risk in certain situations such as if producers under‑deliver or over‑deliver products or if processing facilities are operated in different recovery modes. In the event that MPLX has derivative positions in excess of the product delivered or expected to be delivered, the excess derivative positions may be terminated.
MPLX management conducts a standard credit review on counterparties to derivative contracts, and it has provided the counterparties with a guaranty as credit support for its obligations. A separate agreement with certain counterparties allows MarkWest Liberty Midstream to enter into derivative positions without posting cash collateral. MPLX uses standardized agreements that allow for offset of certain positive and negative exposures in the event of default or other terminating events, including bankruptcy.
Open Derivative Positions and Sensitivity Analysis
The table below sets forth information relating to our significant open commodity derivative contracts as of December 31, 2017.
| December 31, 2017 | ||||||||
| Position | Total Barrels (In thousands) | Weighted Average Price (Per barrel) | Benchmark | |||||
| Crude Oil(a) | ||||||||
| Exchange-traded | Long | 23,299 | $56.96 | CME and ICE Crude(c)(d) | ||||
| Exchange-traded | Short | (25,199 | ) | $55.94 | CME and ICE Crude(c)(d) | |||
| Position | MMBtu | Weighted Average Price (Per MMBtu) | ||||||
| Natural Gas | ||||||||
| OTC | Long | 928,003 | $2.78 | |||||
| Position | Total Gallons (In thousands) | Weighted Average Price (Per gallon) | Benchmark | |||||
| Refined Products(b) | ||||||||
| Exchange-traded | Long | 257,460 | $1.91 | CME ULSD and RBOB(c)(e) | ||||
| Exchange-traded | Short | (236,460 | ) | $1.91 | CME ULSD and RBOB(c)(e) | |||
| OTC | Short | (9,587 | ) | $0.73 |
(a) 99.8 percent of exchange-traded contracts expire in the first quarter of 2018.
(b) 100 percent of exchange-traded contracts expire in the first quarter of 2018.
(c) Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”).
(d) Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”).
(e) Reformulated gasoline Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (“RBOB”).
Sensitivity analysis of the incremental effects on income from operations (“IFO”) of hypothetical 10 percent and 25 percent increases and decreases in commodity prices for open commodity derivative instruments as of December 31, 2017 is provided in the following table.
| Change in IFO from a Hypothetical Price Increase of | Change in IFO from a Hypothetical Price Decrease of | ||||||||||||||
| (In millions) | 10% | 25% | 10% | 25% | |||||||||||
| As of December 31, 2017 | |||||||||||||||
| Crude | $ | (9 | ) | $ | (23 | ) | $ | 10 | $ | 26 | |||||
| Refined products | 6 | 14 | (6 | ) | (14 | ) | |||||||||
| Embedded derivatives | (6 | ) | (16 | ) | 6 | 16 |
We remain at risk for possible changes in the market value of commodity derivative instruments; however, such risk should be mitigated by price changes in the underlying physical commodity. Effects of these offsets are not reflected in the above sensitivity analysis.
We evaluate our portfolio of commodity derivative instruments on an ongoing basis and add or revise strategies in anticipation of changes in market conditions and in risk profiles. Changes to the portfolio after December 31, 2017 would cause future IFO effects to differ from those presented above.
Interest Rate Risk
We are impacted by interest rate fluctuations related to our debt obligations. At December 31, 2017, our debt was primarily comprised of the $2.25 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate senior notes issued February 1, 2011, the $1.95 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate senior notes issued September 5, 2014, the $500 million aggregate principal amount of fixed rate MPLX senior notes issued February 12, 2015, the $1.50 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate senior notes
issued December 15, 2015, the $4.04 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate MPLX senior notes issued December 22, 2015 and the $2.25 billion aggregate principal amount MPLX senior notes issued February 10, 2017. Additionally, we have $505 million of variable rate term debt.
Sensitivity analysis of the effect of a hypothetical 100-basis-point change in interest rates on long-term debt, including the portion classified as current and excluding capital leases, as of December 31, 2017 is provided in the following table. Fair value of cash and cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and accrued interest approximate carrying value and are relatively insensitive to changes in interest rates due to the short-term maturity of the instruments. Accordingly, these instruments are excluded from the table.
| (In millions) | Fair Value(a) | Change in Fair Value(b) | Change in Net Income for the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017(c) | |||||||||
| Long-term debt | ||||||||||||
| Fixed-rate | $ | 13,388 | $ | 1,161 | n/a | |||||||
| Variable-rate | 505 | n/a | 4 |
| (a) | Fair value was based on market prices, where available, or current borrowing rates for financings with similar terms and maturities. |
| (b) | Assumes a 100-basis point decrease in the weighted average yield-to-maturity at December 31, 2017. |
| (c) | Assumes a 100-basis-point change in interest rates. The change in net income was based on the weighted average balance of debt outstanding for the year ended December 31, 2017. |
At December 31, 2017, our portfolio of long-term debt was comprised of fixed-rate instruments and variable-rate borrowings under the MPLX bank revolving credit facility. The fair value of our fixed-rate debt is relatively sensitive to interest rate fluctuations. Our sensitivity to interest rate declines and corresponding increases in the fair value of our debt portfolio unfavorably affects our results of operations and cash flows only when we elect to repurchase or otherwise retire fixed-rate debt at prices above carrying value. Interest rate fluctuations generally do not impact the fair value of borrowings under the MPLX bank revolving credit facility, but may affect our results of operations and cash flows.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk
We are impacted by foreign exchange rate fluctuations related to some of our purchases of crude oil denominated in Canadian dollars. We did not utilize derivatives to hedge our market risk exposure to these foreign exchange rate fluctuations in 2017.
Counterparty Risk
We are subject to risk of loss resulting from nonpayment by our customers to whom we provide services or sell natural gas or NGLs. We believe that certain contracts would allow us to pass those losses through to our customers, thus reducing our risk, when we are selling NGLs and acting as our producer customers’ agent. Our credit exposure related to these customers is represented by the value of our trade receivables. Where exposed to credit risk, we analyze the customer’s financial condition prior to entering into a transaction or agreement, establish credit terms and monitor the appropriateness of these terms on an ongoing basis. In the event of a customer default, we may sustain a loss and our cash receipts could be negatively impacted.
We are subject to risk of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by counterparties or future commission merchants. Our credit exposure related to commodity derivative instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts with a net positive fair value at the reporting date. These outstanding instruments expose us to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to the agreements. Should the creditworthiness of one or more of our counterparties decline, our ability to mitigate nonperformance risk is limited to a counterparty agreeing to either a voluntary termination and subsequent cash settlement or a novation of the derivative contract to a third party. In the event of a counterparty default, we may sustain a loss and our cash receipts could be negatively impacted. This counterparty credit risk does not apply to our embedded derivative as the overall value is a liability. We regularly review the creditworthiness of counterparties and futures commission merchants and enter into master netting agreements when appropriate.
Forward-Looking Statements
These quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk include forward-looking statements with respect to management’s opinion about risks associated with the use of derivative instruments. These statements are based on certain assumptions with respect to interest rates as well as market prices and industry supply of and demand for crude oil, other refinery feedstocks, refined products, natural gas, NGLs and ethanol. If these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, future outcomes with respect to our use of derivative instruments may differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Index
Management’s Responsibilities for Financial Statements
The accompanying consolidated financial statements of Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiaries (“MPC”) are the responsibility of management and have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. They necessarily include some amounts that are based on best judgments and estimates. The financial information displayed in other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is consistent with these consolidated financial statements.
MPC seeks to assure the objectivity and integrity of its financial records by careful selection of its managers, by organizational arrangements that provide an appropriate division of responsibility and by communications programs aimed at assuring that its policies and methods are understood throughout the organization.
The board of directors pursues its oversight role in the area of financial reporting and internal control over financial reporting through its Audit Committee. This committee, composed solely of independent directors, regularly meets (jointly and separately) with the independent registered public accounting firm, management and internal auditors to monitor the proper discharge by each of their responsibilities relative to internal accounting controls and the consolidated financial statements.
| /s/ Gary R. Heminger | /s/ Timothy T. Griffith | /s/ John J. Quaid | ||
| Gary R. Heminger Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer | Timothy T. Griffith Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | John J. Quaid Vice President and Controller |
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
MPC’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). An evaluation of the design and effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, was conducted under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer. Based on the results of this evaluation, MPC’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017.
The effectiveness of MPC’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.
| /s/ Gary R. Heminger | /s/ Timothy T. Griffith | |||
| Gary R. Heminger Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer | Timothy T. Griffith Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Marathon Petroleum Corporation
Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of income, of comprehensive income, of equity and redeemable noncontrolling interest, and of cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). We also have audited the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.
Basis for Opinions
The Company's management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.
Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also include
Showing the first 8K of 263K characters. Open the full section
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer. Based upon that evaluation, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that the design and operation of these disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2017, the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
During the quarter ended December 31, 2017, there were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and – Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, which reports are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Information concerning our directors required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the sub-heading “Proposal No. 1 – Election of Class I Directors” located under the heading “Proposals of the Board” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Information concerning our executive officers is included in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Our board of directors has established the Audit Committee and determined our “Audit Committee Financial Experts.” The related information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the sub-headings “The Board of Directors” and “Audit Committee Financial Expert” located under the heading “The Board of Directors and Corporate Governance” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
We have adopted a Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, which applies to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Controller, Treasurer and other persons performing similar functions. It is available on our website at http://ir.marathonpetroleum.com by selecting “Corporate Governance” and clicking on “Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers.”
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Information regarding compliance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is set forth under the caption “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
Information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the headings “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” “Compensation-Based Risk Assessment,” “Ratio of Annual Compensation for the CEO to our Median Employee,” and “Executive Compensation;” under the sub-headings “Compensation Committee” and “Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” located under the heading “The Board of Directors and Corporate Governance;” and under the headings “Compensation of Directors” and “Compensation Committee Report” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
Information concerning security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the headings “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners” and “Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides information as of December 31, 2017 with respect to shares of our common stock that may be issued under the MPC 2012 Plan and the MPC 2011 Plan:
| Plan category | Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights(a) | Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights(b) | Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans(c) | ||||||
| Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders | 8,958,247 | $ | 33.74 | 41,355,420 | |||||
| Equity compensation plan not approved by stockholders | — | — | — | ||||||
| Total | 8,958,247 | N/A | 41,355,420 |
(a) Includes the following:
| 1) | 8,465,398 stock options granted pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan and the MPC 2011 Plan and not forfeited, cancelled or expired as of December 31, 2017. |
| 2) | 285,164 restricted stock units granted pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan and the MPC 2011 Plan for shares unissued and not forfeited, cancelled or expired as of December 31, 2017. |
| 3) | 207,685 shares as the maximum potential number of shares that could be issued in settlement of performance units outstanding as of December 31, 2017 pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan, based on the closing price of our common stock on December 29, 2017 of $65.98 per share. The number of shares reported for this award vehicle may overstate dilution. See Note 23 for more information on performance unit awards granted under the MPC 2012 Plan. |
In addition to the awards reported above, 1,188,662 shares of restricted stock have been issued pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan and were outstanding as of December 31, 2017.
| (b) | Restricted stock, restricted stock units and performance units are not taken into account in the weighted-average exercise price as such awards have no exercise price. |
| (c) | Reflects the shares available for issuance pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan. All granting authority under the MPC 2011 Plan was revoked following the approval of the MPC 2012 Plan by shareholders on April 25, 2012. No more than 16,688,380 of the shares reported in this column may be issued for awards other than stock options or stock appreciation rights. The number of shares reported in this column assumes 207,685 as the maximum potential number of shares that could be issued pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan in settlement of performance units outstanding as of December 31, 2017, based on the closing price of our common stock on December 29, 2017, of $65.98 per share. The number of shares assumed for this award vehicle may understate the number of shares available for issuance pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan. See Note 23 for more information on performance unit awards granted pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan. Shares related to grants made pursuant to the MPC 2012 Plan that are forfeited, cancelled or expire unexercised become immediately available for issuance under the MPC 2012 Plan. |
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the heading “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions,” and under the sub-heading “Board and Committee Independence” under the heading “The Board of Directors and Corporate Governance” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
Information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the material appearing under the heading “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm’s Fees, Services and Independence” in our Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
A. Documents Filed as Part of the Report
-
Financial Statements (see Part II, Item 8. of this Annual Report on Form 10-K regarding financial statements)
-
Financial Statement Schedules
Financial statement schedules required under SEC rules but not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is contained in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto.
- Exhibits:
| † | The exhibits and schedules have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K and will be provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. |
| * | Indicates management contract or compensatory plan, contract or arrangement in which one or more directors or executive officers of the Registrant may be participants. |
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary
Not applicable.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| February 28, 2018 | MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION | |
| By: /s/ John J. Quaid | ||
| John J. Quaid Vice President and Controller |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on February 28, 2018 on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated.
| Signature | Title | |
| /s/ Gary R. Heminger | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) | |
| Gary R. Heminger | ||
| /s/ Timothy T. Griffith | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) | |
| Timothy T. Griffith | ||
| /s/ John J. Quaid | Vice President and Controller (principal accounting officer) | |
| John J. Quaid | ||
| * | Director | |
| Abdulaziz F. Alkhayyal | ||
| * | Director | |
| Evan Bayh | ||
| * | Director | |
| Charles E. Bunch | ||
| * | Director | |
| David A. Daberko | ||
| * | Director | |
| Steven A. Davis | ||
| * | Director | |
| Donna A. James | ||
| * | Director | |
| James E. Rohr | ||
| * | Director | |
| Frank M. Semple | ||
| * | Director | |
| J. Michael Stice | ||
| * | Director | |
| John P. Surma | ||
- The undersigned, by signing his name hereto, does sign and execute this report pursuant to the Power of Attorney executed by the above-named directors and officers of the registrant, which is being filed herewith on behalf of such directors and officers.
| By: /s/ Gary R. Heminger | February 28, 2018 | |
| Gary R. Heminger Attorney-in-Fact |