Delek Logistics (DKL) Risk Analysis

Certain of our pipelines provide services that may be subject to regulation by the FERC and/or state regulators. The FERC uses prescribed rate methodologies for developing regulated tariff rates for interstate oil and product pipelines. The FERC's primary rate-making authority is currently price-indexing; if the methodology changes, the new methodology may result in tariffs that generate lower revenues and cash flows. The indexing method allows a pipeline to increase its rates based on a percentage change in the producer price index for refined goods and is not based on pipeline-specific costs. If the index falls, we will be required to reduce our rates that are based on the FERC's price indexing methodology if they exceed the new maximum available rate. In addition, changes in the index might not be large enough to fully reflect actual increases in our costs. The FERC's rate-making methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our true costs or may delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our revenues and cash flows. We note that the FERC index has been set at a level for the period from 2016-2021 that is lower than that which was in effect from 2010-2015; this is likely to result in lower annual rate increases for the coming 2020-2021 period for our transportation and other rates that are subject to the FERC index for annual adjustments, compared to the previous five-year period, and indeed the index level for the 2016 index rate adjustment required a decrease in certain of our interstate transportation rates to comply with the reduced ceiling level. Furthermore, on October 20, 2016, the FERC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Revisions to Indexing Policies and Page 700 of the FERC Form No. 6, (the "ANOPR"). If final rules are implemented as proposed in that ANOPR, our reporting burdens for providing to the FERC annual throughput, revenue and cost of service information would likely increase. In addition, if implemented as proposed, the FERC regulations based on the ANOPR would create new tests for whether our pipelines providing service subject to the FERC tariffs could increase rates in accordance with the FERC index in a given year and could restrict our ability to increase our rates as a result. Shippers may protest, and the FERC may investigate, the lawfulness of new or changed tariff rates. The FERC can suspend those tariff rates for up to seven months. It can also require refunds of amounts collected, based on rates that are ultimately found to be unlawful, and prescribe new rates prospectively. The FERC and interested parties can also challenge tariff rates that have become final and effective. The FERC can order new rates to take effect prospectively and order refunds for past rates that exceed the just and reasonable level for time periods up to two years prior to the date of a complaint. Due to the complexity of rate making, the lawfulness of any rate is never assured. A successful challenge of our rates could adversely affect our revenues. In addition, on December 15, 2016, the FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry Regarding the Commission's Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Costs, (the "NOI"). The FERC issued a final order on March 15, 2018 (Docket No. PL17-1-000) in which the FERC found that an impermissible double recovery results from granting a Master Limited Partnership pipeline, such as the Partnership, both an income tax allowance and a return on equity pursuant to the discounted cash flow methodology. Accordingly, the FERC revised its policy and no longer permits an MLP to recover an income tax allowance in its cost of service. These changes could require us to change our rate design and potentially lower our rates if they are challenged on a cost of service basis. The FERC also regulates the terms and conditions of service, including access rights, for interstate transportation on common carrier pipelines subject to its jurisdiction. While the FERC regulates rates and terms and conditions of service for transportation of crude oil or refined products in interstate commerce by pipeline, state agencies may regulate rates and terms and conditions of service for petroleum pipeline transportation in intrastate commerce. Whether a pipeline provides service in interstate commerce or intrastate commerce is highly fact-dependent and determined on a case-by-case basis. We cannot provide assurance that the FERC will not, at some point, assert that some or all of the transportation service we provide is within its jurisdiction. If the FERC were successful with any such assertion, we may be required to pay refunds to customers and the FERC's rate-making methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our actual costs, delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs and subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. Service on the East Texas Crude Logistics System is currently subject to a temporary waiver issued by the FERC. If the conditions to the continued effectiveness of that East Texas Waiver Order are no longer true at any point, service on that system would become fully subject to the FERC tariff filing requirements and other regulatory requirements for the provision of transportation service. If we file tariffs, we may be required to provide a cost justification for the transportation charge. We would also be required to provide service to all prospective shippers making reasonable requests for service without undue discrimination and to operate in a manner that does not provide any undue preference to shippers. The rates under such tariffs may be insufficient to allow us to recover fully our cost of providing service on the affected pipelines, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, regulation by the FERC may subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. We own pipeline assets in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. In Texas, a pipeline, with some exceptions, is required to operate as a common carrier and provide transportation without discrimination. Arkansas provides that all intrastate oil pipelines are common carriers, but it exercises light-handed regulation over petroleum pipelines. In Louisiana, all pipelines conveying petroleum from a point of origin within the state to a destination within the state are declared common carriers. The Louisiana Public Service Commission is empowered with the authority to establish reasonable rates and regulations for the transport of petroleum by a common carrier, mandating public tariffs and providing of transportation without discrimination. State commissions have generally not been aggressive in regulating common carrier pipelines, have generally not investigated the rates or practices of petroleum pipelines in the absence of shipper complaints and generally resolve complaints informally. If the regulatory commissions in the states in which we operate change their policies and aggressively regulate the rates or terms of service of pipelines operating in those states, it could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Federal Trade Commission, the FERC and the CFTC hold statutory authority to monitor certain segments of the physical and futures energy commodities markets. These agencies have imposed broad regulations prohibiting fraud and manipulation of such markets. With regard to our physical sales of oil or other energy commodities, and any related hedging activities that we undertake, we are required to observe the market-related regulations enforced by these agencies, which hold substantial enforcement authority. Failure to comply with such regulations, as interpreted and enforced, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the fees we charge on certain of our other contracts not involving regulated or other pipelines are also subject to change based on inflation-based indices, such as certain sub-indices of the producer price index or the consumer price index. If the index rises, we will be able to increase our rates. However, if the index falls, we will be required to reduce our rates.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction for U.S. federal income tax purposes between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted final Treasury Regulations allowing a similar monthly simplifying convention for taxable years beginning on or after August 3, 2015. However, such final regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders. Our counsel has not rendered an opinion with respect to whether our monthly convention for allocating taxable income and losses is permitted by existing Treasury Regulations.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after 2017, it may collect any resulting taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly from us. We will generally have the ability to shift any such tax liability to our general partner and our unitholders in accordance with their interests in us during the year under audit, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so (and will choose to do so) under all circumstances, or that we will be able to (or choose to) effect corresponding shifts in state income or similar tax liability resulting from the IRS adjustment in states in which we do business in the year under audit or in the adjustment year. If we make payments of taxes, penalties and interest resulting from audit adjustments, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be reduced, perhaps substantially. In the event the IRS makes an audit adjustment to our income tax returns and we do not or cannot shift the liability to our unitholders in accordance with their interests in us during the year under audit, we will generally have the ability to request that the IRS reduce the determined underpayment by reducing the suspended passive loss carryovers of our unitholders (without any compensation from us to such unitholders), to the extent such underpayment is attributable to a net decrease in passive activity losses allocable to certain partners. Such reduction, if approved by the IRS, will be binding on any affected unitholders.

The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common limited partner units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. From time to time, members of the U.S. Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships, such as with the "Clean Energy for America Act", introduced on May 2, 2019, which is similar to legislation that was commonly proposed during the Obama Administration. If successful, such a proposal could eliminate the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any changes or proposals will ultimately be enacted, but it is possible that a change in law could affect us and may, if enacted, be applied retroactively. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common limited partner units.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in the common limited partner units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") on this or any other tax matter affecting us. Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. A change in our business or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity. If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 21.0%, and would likely pay state and local income tax at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate dividends (to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits), and no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits would flow through to such unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced. Therefore, if we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, there would be material reductions in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common limited partner units. Our Partnership Agreement provides that, if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to entity-level taxation for federal, state or local income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

Changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity-level taxation by individual states. Because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of such additional tax on us by a state will reduce the cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Our Partnership Agreement provides that, if a law is enacted or an existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to entity-level taxation, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.

Our operations require numerous permits and authorizations under various laws and regulations. These authorizations and permits are subject to revocation, renewal or modification and can require operational changes to limit impacts or potential impacts on the environment and/or health and safety. A violation of authorization or permit conditions or other legal or regulatory requirements could result in substantial fines, criminal sanctions, permit revocations, injunctions and/or facility shutdowns. In addition, material modifications of our operations or changes in applicable laws could require modifications to our existing permits or upgrades to our existing pollution control equipment. Any or all of these matters could have a negative effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows.

The threat of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States and in foreign countries. Numerous proposals have been made and could continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit existing emissions of greenhouse gases, or "GHGs" as well as to restrict or eliminate such future emissions. As a result, our operations are subject to a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks associated with the production and processing of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs. In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the United States, implement New Source Performance Standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector, and together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. Following the change in presidential administrations, there have been attempts to modify certain of these regulations, and litigation is ongoing. Additionally, various states and groups of states have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of GHG emissions. At the international level, there is a non-binding agreement, the United Nations-sponsored "Paris Agreement," for nations to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020, although the United States has announced its withdrawal from such agreement, effective November 4, 2020. The adoption and implementation of new or more stringent legislation or regulations could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, oil and natural gas, which could reduce demand for our services and products. Concern over the threat of climate change may also result in political action deleterious to our interests. For example, various pledges to curtail oil and gas operations have been made by candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2020. Separately, increased attention to climate change risks has increased the possibility of claims brought by public and private entities against oil and gas companies in connection with their GHG emissions. While courts have generally declined to assign direct liability for climate change to large sources of GHG emissions, new claims for damages and increased government scrutiny, especially from state and local governments, will likely continue. Moreover, to the extent societal pressures or political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed without regard to the company's causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors. There are also increasing financial risks for fossil fuel producers as shareholders currently invested in fossil-fuel energy companies concerned about the potential effects of climate change may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-energy related sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. Additionally, the lending practices of institutional lenders have been the subject of intensive lobbying efforts in recent years, oftentimes public in nature, by environmental activists, proponents of the international Paris Agreement, and foreign citizenry concerned about climate change not to provide funding for fossil fuel producers. Limitation of investments in and financings for fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. Finally, it should be noted that many scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods and other climatic events; if any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our operations or our customers' exploration and production operations, which in turn could affect demand for our services. In 2010, the EPA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA") finalized new standards, raising the required Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standard of the nation's passenger fleet by 40% to approximately 35 miles per gallon by 2016 and imposing the first ever federal GHG emissions standards on cars and light trucks. In September 2011, the EPA and the DOT finalized first-time standards for fuel economy of medium and heavy duty trucks. On August 28, 2012, the EPA and NHTSA announced final regulations that mandated further decreases in passenger vehicle GHG emissions and increases in fuel economy beginning with 2017 model year vehicles and increasing to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. During 2016, the EPA conducted a mid-term evaluation of progress in meeting vehicle GHG standards and in January 2017 the EPA issued a determination to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 vehicles. In March 2017, EPA announced its decision to reopen the mid-term evaluation process and reconsider the January 2017 determination. As a result, GHG emissions standards for MY 2022-2025 vehicles remain uncertain. In August 2016, the EPA and the NHTSA jointly finalized standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles regulating fuel efficiency and carbon pollution. Such increases in fuel economy standards and potential electrification of the vehicle fleet, along with mandated increases in use of renewable fuels discussed above, could result in decreasing demand for petroleum fuels. Decreasing demand for petroleum fuels could materially affect profitability at Delek Holdings' refineries, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and cash flows.

The volumes of crude oil and refined products that we may transport on our pipelines will depend on the volumes of crude oil processed and refined products produced at Delek Holdings' refineries that we serve, as well as third parties' desire to transport crude on our systems, including our Paline Pipeline. The volumes of crude oil processed and refined products produced depend, in part, on the availability of attractively priced crude oil. For example, if a shipper on one of our pipeline systems is unable to locate or purchase attractively priced crude, which could happen due to a large number of market factors, and their shipments on our system are made in large part because of the pipeline's proximity to such attractively priced crude, then our pipeline may not be utilized. If the capacity of such pipeline is not under contract, or the pipeline is not utilized at all or to its capacity, then our results may be adversely affected. Our Paline Pipeline is such a pipeline. If we are unable to secure capacity agreements on our Paline Pipeline, our Paline Pipeline may go unused or underused for a period of time, which could affect our operating results if third parties are no longer interested in transporting crude oil along that route for economic reasons associated with the price of crude or other reasons. Further, in order to maintain or increase production levels at Delek Holdings' refineries, Delek Holdings must continually contract for new crude oil supplies or connect to alternative sources of crude oil. Adverse developments in major oil producing regions around the world could have a significant impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows because of our lack of industry and geographic diversity and substantial reliance on Delek Holdings as a direct or indirect customer. Accordingly, in addition to risks related to accessing, gathering, transporting and storing crude oil and refined products, we are disproportionately exposed to risks inherent in the broader oil and gas industry, including: - the volatility and uncertainty of regional pricing differentials for crude oil and refined products;- the action by the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, individually or in the aggregate, regarding production levels and prices;- the nature and extent of governmental regulation and taxation; and - the anticipated future prices of crude oil and refined products in markets served by Delek Holdings' refineries. If, as a result of any of these or other factors, the volumes of attractively priced crude oil available to Delek Holdings' refineries are materially reduced for a prolonged period of time, the volumes of crude oil and refined products that we transport and store, and the related fees for those services, could be materially reduced, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our pipelines and terminals connect to other pipelines, terminals and facilities owned and operated by unaffiliated third parties. Our shippers often need to use such pipelines, terminals and facilities; however, the continuing operation of such third-party pipelines, terminals and other facilities is not within our control. These pipelines, terminals and other facilities may become unavailable because of testing, turnarounds, line repair, reduced operating pressure, lack of operating capacity, regulatory requirements, curtailments of receipt or deliveries due to insufficient capacity, corporate business decisions or because of damage from hurricanes or other operational hazards. In addition, we do not have interconnect agreements with all of these pipelines, terminals and other facilities, and the interconnect agreements we do have may be terminated in certain circumstances, including circumstances beyond our control, and on short notice. If any of these pipelines, terminals or other facilities becomes unable to receive or transport crude oil or refined products, we may be unable to perform our obligations under our commercial agreements with Delek Holdings and third parties, and our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to our unitholders could be adversely affected. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volumes of refined products or crude oil over interconnecting pipelines, the allocations to us and other existing shippers on these interconnecting pipelines could be reduced, which could also reduce volumes distributed through our terminals or transported through our crude oil pipelines. Allocation reductions of this nature are not infrequent and are beyond our control. Any significant reduction in volumes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to service our indebtedness and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We typically own and hold a certain amount of inventory of light products in our business with respect to our wholesale marketing business in West Texas. Depending on our ability to sell such inventory, and the timing in which we do so, we could be exposed to risks related to the volatility of commodity prices in West Texas. Such volatility depends on many factors, including general market conditions and prices, demand for refined products in the West Texas market, the timing of refined product deliveries and downtime at refineries in the surrounding area. In addition, our actual product acquisitions from suppliers versus the amount we nominated to acquire may result in us being effectively long or short with respect to a given product and thus subject to further commodity price risk. This exposure to the volatility of commodity prices could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to service our indebtedness and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. To partially mitigate the risk of various financial exposures inherent in our business, including commodity price risk and interest rate risk on our floating rate debt, we selectively use derivative financial instruments, such as fuel-related derivative transactions, and may use interest rate swaps and interest rate cap agreements. In connection with such derivative transactions, we may be required to make payments to maintain margin accounts and to settle the contracts at their value in accordance with their terms and upon termination. The maintenance of required margin accounts, and the settlement of derivative contracts, could cause us to suffer losses or limit gains. In particular, derivative transactions could expose us to the risk of financial loss upon unexpected or unusual variations in the sales prices of wholesale gasoline and diesel relative to the derivative instrument. We cannot assure you that the strategies underlying these transactions will be successful. If any of the strategies we utilize to manage our exposure to various types of risk is not effective, we may incur losses.

One of our business strategies is to evaluate and make capital investments to expand our existing asset base through the development and construction of new or expanded assets. At the same time, we also will need to devote significant resources to maintaining our asset base. However, in developing or maintaining such assets, we may experience unanticipated increases in the cost, scope and completion time for our construction or maintenance and repair projects. Equipment that we require to complete these projects may be unavailable to us at expected costs or within expected time periods. Additionally, labor expense may exceed our expectations. Moreover, pipeline construction projects requiring federal approvals are generally subject to environment review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and must also comply with other natural resources review requirements imposed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and other federal and state laws and regulations. Due to these or other factors beyond our control, we may be unable to complete these projects within anticipated cost parameters and timelines. In addition, the benefits we realize from completed projects may take longer to realize and/or be less than we anticipated. Our inability to complete and/or realize the benefits of construction and/or maintenance projects in a cost-efficient and timely manner could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to service our indebtedness and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We are insured under Delek Holdings' insurance policies, subject to the terms, retentions and limits under those policies. To the extent Delek Holdings experiences losses under the insurance policies, the limits of our coverage may be decreased. In addition, we are not insured against all potential losses, costs or liabilities. We could suffer losses for uninsurable or uninsured risks or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. In addition, because Delek Holdings' time element insurance has up to a 60 day waiting period, a significant part, or all, of a business interruption loss or additional expenses loss could be uninsured. The occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The energy industry is highly capital intensive, and the entire or partial loss of individual facilities or multiple facilities can result in significant costs to both energy industry companies, such as us, and their insurance carriers. Large energy industry claims could result in significant increases in the level of premium costs and deductibles for participants in the energy industry. Insurance companies that have historically participated in underwriting energy-related facilities may discontinue that practice, may reduce the insurance coverage they are willing to offer or demand significantly higher premiums or deductibles. If significant changes occur in the number or financial solvency of insurance underwriters for the energy industry, or if other adverse conditions over which we have no control prevail in the insurance market, we may be unable to obtain and maintain adequate insurance at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, any losses under the insurance policies experienced by Delek Holdings may impact our ability to obtain, renew or arrange for adequate alternative coverage. The unavailability of full insurance coverage to cover events in which we suffer significant losses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Under the Omnibus Agreement, Delek Holdings has also agreed to reimburse us for certain losses related to certain asset failures, which provisions expire at various times depending on the asset involved. See Item 1, "Business-Commercial Agreements-Other Agreements with Delek Holdings." However, upon such expiration, or if Delek Holdings were to default under the Omnibus Agreement or otherwise fail to satisfy its obligations to us, and insurance coverage was not otherwise available or was otherwise available only at substantial retention levels or cost, we could suffer significant losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our wholesale fuel sales in our West Texas business are made to third party customers. The margins we earn on these sales, and the quantity of barrels we sell, are dependent on a number of factors outside our control, including the overall supply of refined products, overall market conditions, the demand for these products, competition from third parties, the price of ethanol and the value of renewable identification numbers ("RINs") we receive from blending renewable fuels. Specifically, among other circumstances, the margins we earn through these activities may be adversely impacted in the event of excess supply of refined products or decreased customer demand. Political instability and global health crises, such as the recent outbreak of the coronavirus, can also impact the global economy and decrease worldwide demand for oil and refined products. These supply and demand dynamics are subject to day-to-day variability and may result in volatility in the margins that we achieve. These, and other dynamics, may also result in our customers reducing their purchases of product from us in favor of purchasing more product from other refiners or suppliers. Further, decreases in the value of RINs could impact our margins in our wholesale business. In addition, our margins are affected by the price we pay for ethanol, which is blended into certain refined products. We occasionally lock in ethanol prices by committing to purchase ethanol in the future at a certain price. If the spot price for ethanol at the time we actually take delivery of such product is less than what we paid for it, our margins could be negatively impacted. With the expiration of the Abilene Contract, a greater portion of the product that we purchase and sell may be subject to price volatility between the time of purchase and the time of sale. Price risk management programs established to hedge price volatility may not perform as intended, which may negatively impact our margins. Extended periods of market conditions that result in us earning margins lower than anticipated or in us selling fewer barrels of product to wholesale customers, for any of the reasons set forth above or otherwise, could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The volume and throughput of crude oil and refined products transported through our pipelines and sold through our terminals and to third parties is directly affected by the level of supply and demand for all of such products in the markets served directly or indirectly by our assets. Supply and demand for such products fluctuate during the calendar year. Demand for gasoline, for example, is generally higher during the summer months than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in motor vehicle traffic and demand for asphalt products, which is a substantial product of Delek Holdings' El Dorado Refinery, is lower in the winter months. In addition, our refining customers, such as Delek Holdings, occasionally slow or shut down operations to perform planned maintenance during the winter, when demand for their products is lower. Accordingly, these factors can affect the need for crude oil or refined products by our customers, and therefore limit our volumes or throughput during these periods, and could adversely affect our customers' business, financial condition and results of operations, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.