UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

________________

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

þ ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (FEE REQUIRED)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

o TRANSACTION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (NO FEE REQUIRED)

For the transition period from ________ to ________

Commission File No. 000-50394

CENTRAL ENERGY PARTNERS LP

(Exact Name of Issuer as specified in its charter)

(214) 526-9700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Exchange Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Exchange Act:

Common Units

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o 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 Exchange Act. o Yes    þ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   þ Yes    o 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 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 in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-K  (§229.405) 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.  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     o Yes    þ No

The aggregate market value of the voting Common Units held by non-affiliates of the Partnership at March 6, 2014 (for this purpose, all outstanding Common Units of the Partnership minus all Common Units held by the officers, directors and known holders of 10% or more of the Common Units), based on the closing price for the Partnership’s voting Common Units on OTC Pink on June 28, 2013, was $244,427.

The number of Common Units outstanding on March 6, 2014 was 19,066,482.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: None

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The statements contained in this Annual Report of Central Energy Partners LP (the “Partnership”), that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). These forward-looking statements are identified as any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Statements using words such as “may,” “could,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “project,” “strategy,” “forecast,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “pursue,” “target,” “continue,” or similar expressions help identify forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report are largely based on our expectations, which reflect estimates and assumptions made by our management. These estimates and assumptions reflect our best judgment based on currently known market conditions and other factors. Although we believe such estimates and assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently uncertain and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are beyond our control. In addition, management’s assumptions about future events may prove to be inaccurate. Management cautions all readers that the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report are not guarantees of future performance, and management cannot assure any reader that such statements will be realized or the forward-looking events and circumstances will in fact occur. The Partnership’s actual results may differ materially from those anticipated, estimated, projected or expected by management. When considering forward-looking statements, please read “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in this Annual Report.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The Partnership is a reporting company pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. As a result, it files Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to these reports, with the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. These reports are available on the Partnership’s website at www.centralenergylp.com. These reports are also available on the SEC’s website at www.SEC.gov. In addition, the Partnership will provide copies of these reports free of charge upon request.

The public may also read a copy of any materials filed by the Partnership with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Central Energy Partners LP and its consolidated subsidiaries (not including the General Partner) are hereinafter referred to as “Central”. When referring to Central and using phrases such as “we,” “our,” “us,” or the “Company,” our intent is to refer to Central and its consolidated subsidiaries as a whole or on an entity basis, depending on the context in which the statements are made. References to the “Partnership” are to Central Energy Partners LP only, and such references are not intended to include any of its subsidiaries or the General Partner. For convenience, this glossary includes other terms used in this Annual Report, and each of the following terms has the meaning set forth below.

“Affiliate” means a person that directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a specified person. The term “control” (including the terms controlling, controlled by and under common control with) means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.

“Board” means the Board of Directors of Central Energy GP LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership.

“Central” means Central Energy Partners LP, a Delaware limited partnership and its subsidiaries.

“CEGP” means CEGP Acquisition, LLC, the entity which owns a controlling 55% in the General Partner, a newly-formed Texas limited liability company controlled by John L. Denman, Jr. and G. Thomas Graves III.

“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.

“Common Units” means those limited partner interests issued by the Partnership as prescribed in the Partnership Agreement.

“Cushing Fund” means the Cushing MLP Opportunity Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.

“Denman” means John L. Denman, Jr., a controlling person of CEGP and the Chief Executive Officer and President of the General Partner.

“Exchange Act” means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

“CEGP Investment” means the transaction dated November 26, 2013, which consisted of the sale of 3,000,000 newly-issued Common Units of the Partnership, the issuance of Performance Warrants and the sale of newly-issued membership interests representing a 55% interest in the General Partner to CEGP for $2,750,000.

“General Partner” means Central Energy GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, formerly known as Rio Vista GP LLC.

“GP Agreement” means the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the General Partner dated November 26, 2013, which replaced in its entirety the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the General Partner dated April 12, 2011.

“GP Interests” means the issued and outstanding membership interests in the General Partner.

“Graves” means G. Thomas Graves III, a controlling person of CEGP and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CEGP.

“Hopewell” means Hopewell Investment Partners LLC.

“Hopewell Loan” means that certain loan made by Hopewell to Regional on March 20, 2013, of up to $2.5 million.

“Hopewell Loan Agreement” means that certain loan agreement dated March 20, 2013, as amended, by and between Regional and Hopewell, and the collateral loan documents evidencing the Hopewell Loan.

“Hopewell Note” means the promissory note by and between Regional, as Borrower, and Hopewell, as Lender, issued in connection with the Hopewell Loan Agreement.

“IRS” means the United States Internal Revenue Service.

“Limited Partners” means those natural persons or entities holding Common Units of the Partnership.

“National Securities Exchange” means a recognized national securities exchange that offers the Partnership an exemption from the registration requirements of state securities laws with respect to the Common Units.

“NGLs” means natural gas liquids.

“Partners” means the General Partner and all Limited Partners.

“Partnership” means Central Energy Partners LP.

“Partnership Agreement” means the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated November 26, 2013, which replaced in its entirety the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated April 12, 2011, as amended on March 28, 2012.

“Performance Warrants” refers to the warrants granted in connection with the CEGP Investment to JLD Services, Ltd. and Graves providing each with the right, but not the obligation, to acquire up to 1,500,000 Common Units at a price of $0.093478, in the event the Partnership successfully completes one or more asset acquisition transactions, approved by the Board of the General Partner, with an aggregate gross purchase price of at least $20 million within 12 months after November 26, 2014.

“Regional” means Regional Enterprises, Inc., a Virginia corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership.

“Registration Rights Agreement” means that certain Registration Rights Agreement dated effective April 1, 2011, as amended and restated on November 26, 2013.

“RVOP” means Rio Vista Operating Partnership L.P., an entity owned 99.9% by the Partnership, as limited partner, and 0.1% by Rio Vista Operating GP LLC, as general partner, an entity wholly-owned by the Partnership.

“RZB” means RB International Finance (USA) LLC, formerly known as RZB Finance LLC.

“RZB Loan” means that certain $5 million loan made by RZB to the Partnership on July 26, 2007, the proceeds of which were used as part of the consideration to purchase Regional.

“Sale” means the sale of 12,724,019 newly-issued Common Units of the Partnership and all of the outstanding membership interests in the General Partner to Central Energy LP for $4,100,000 on November 17, 2010.

“Securities Act” means the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

“SEC” means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Treasury” means the United States Department of Treasury.

“Unitholders” mean those limited partners holding Common Units issued by the Partnership.

“Warrant Purchasers” refers to the holders of the Performance Warrants granted in connection with the CEGP Investment to JLD Services, Ltd. and Graves.

PART I

Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties.

General

Central Energy Partners LP (“Partnership”) is a publicly-traded Delaware limited partnership. We currently provide liquid bulk storage, trans-loading and transportation services for hazardous chemicals and petroleum products through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Regional Enterprises, Inc. (“Regional”). Our strategy going forward continues to be organic growth at Regional (to the extent of available free cash) and to acquire midstream assets, which include gas gathering and transmission systems, compression, treating and processing facilities, fractionation facilities, and transportation capabilities. The Partnership’s Common Units are listed for trading on the OTC Pink (formerly known as Pink OTC Markets, Inc.) under the symbol “ENGY”. Our principal executive offices are located at 4809 Cole Avenue, Suite 108, Dallas, Texas 75205, and our telephone number is (214) 526-9700. Our website is located at www.centralenergylp.com.

Recent Developments

CEGP Investment

On November 26, 2013 (“Closing”), the Partnership, the General Partner and CEGP Acquisition, LLC (“CEGP”) executed a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) and certain other transaction documents (“Other Transaction Documents”) all for an aggregate purchase price of $2,750,000 (“Purchase Price”). The PSA and Other Transaction Documents provided for (1) the sale of a 55% interest in the General Partner to CEGP through the purchase of newly issued membership interests of the General Partner by CEGP, and the issuance of 3,000,000 Common Units to CEGP, (2) the issuance of performance warrants that provide the holders thereof with the opportunity, but not the obligation, to acquire, in the aggregate, an additional 3,000,000 Common Units at an exercise price of $0.093478, subject to adjustment, in the event the Partnership successfully completes one or more asset acquisition transactions with an aggregate gross purchase price of at least $20 million within 12 months after closing (“Performance Warrants”), (3) amending and restating the Registration Rights Agreement, (4) amending and restating the GP Agreement, and (5) amending and restating the Partnership Agreement. At the Closing, net proceeds of $2,350,000 (“Net Proceeds”) were delivered to the General Partner and the Partnership (the Purchase Price less credits for prior payments of $400,000 made to the General Partner in connection with stand-still agreements in place until the execution of the PSA) (“Stand-Still Payments”). Of the total Purchase Price, the amount of $280,434 was allocated to the price paid for the 3,000,000 Common Units. CEGP paid $240,434 to the Partnership at Closing from the Net Proceeds, with the $40,000 balance of the purchase price for the 3,000,000 Common Units being a portion of the Stand-Still Payments. The remaining amount of the Purchase Price, or $2,469,566, was allocated to the value of the 55% Membership Interest of the General Partner, represented by 136,888.89 Units issued to CEGP, and $2,109,566 was paid to the General Partner at Closing from the Net Proceeds with the balance of $360,000 being the attributed portion of the Stand-Still Payments.

With the completion of the CEGP Investment, CEGP now holds 55% of the issued and outstanding membership interests in the General Partner, and appoints five (5) of the nine (9) members of the Board of the General Partner. As a result, CEGP controls the General Partner. In addition, CEGP holds 3,000,000 Common Units, which represent 15.7% of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership. Prior to execution of the PSA, Messrs. Imad K. Anbouba and Carter R. Montgomery and the Cushing Fund controlled the General Partner and had controlling authority over the Partnership. CEGP is a newly-formed Texas limited liability company controlled by John L. Denman, Jr. and G. Thomas Graves III. Upon completion of the CEGP Investment, Mr. Denman replaced Mr. Anbouba as CEO and President of the General Partner and Mr. Graves was appointed as the Chairman of the Board replacing Mr. Jerry V. Swank. JLD Services, Ltd., a company controlled by Messrs. Denman and Graves, and Mr. Graves were each granted a Performance Warrant which when combined with the Common Units acquired by CEGP in connection with the CEGP Investment would represent 27.1% of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership.

Amendments to the GP Agreement

In connection with the CEGP Investment, the GP Agreement was amended to incorporate certain amendments, including: (1) changing Section 3.2 to better memorialize the activities that will need to take place to provide the pre-emptive rights for Members of the General Partner; (2) inserting certain changes to the constitution of and appointment of persons to the Board of Directors; (3) eliminating references to the Buy-Sell Agreement among Messrs. Anbouba and Montgomery and Cushing MLP Opportunity Fund, LP (formerly The Cushing MLP Opportunity Fund I, LP) (the “Cushing Fund”), which was cancelled at the Closing; (4) amending Section 6.13 of the GP Agreement to remove the right of the Members to vote on any borrowing by the General Partner; (5) revising the percentage vote of Members required to amend any provision of the GP Agreement or restate the GP Agreement from a unanimous vote to those Members holding 80% of the issued and outstanding membership interests of the General Partner; (6) changing the definitions section of the GP Agreement consistent with changes in the text of the agreement; and (7) including the concept of unitizing the Membership Interests.  

In addition, the right of first refusal set forth in Section 3.6 of the GP Agreement was amended so that the General Partner has the first right to purchase any Membership Interests offered by a Member for sale to a third party. The reason for this change was to provide the General Partner, if it has the funds to do so, the opportunity to buy the offered Membership Interest and cancel it; the result being the same as if the Members had purchased such Membership Interest pro rata. This amendment reduces the risk of Members having to purchase the Membership Interest of a selling Member in order to maintain their pro rata ownership position in the General Partner.

Under the terms of the GP Agreement, CEGP, as the “Majority Member” of the General Partner, has the right to appoint five (5) persons to serve as directors of the General Partner, including not less than two (2) persons who qualify as “independent” under the rules and regulations of the SEC. Each of Messrs. Imad K. Anbouba and Carter R. Montgomery and the Cushing Fund, as the “Appointing Minority Members”, have the right to appoint one (1) person to serve as a director of the General Partner. In addition, the Appointing Minority Members collectively have the right to appoint one (1) person to serve as a director from time to time, which person qualifies as “independent” under the rules and regulations of the SEC. Each person appointed to serve as a director serves at the pleasure of the appointing member or members of the General Partner or until he or she earlier resigns as a director. Each director can be removed, with or without cause, by the appointing member or members. This method of appointing directors can only be changed by amending the GP Agreement, which requires the approval of members holding 80% of the issued and outstanding membership interests of the General Partner.

Amendments to the Partnership Agreement

In connection with the CEGP Investment, certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement were approved by more than a majority of the limited partners of the Partnership on November 20, 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of the Partnership Agreement. These amendments include: (1) incorporating the provisions of the First Amendment to the Partnership Agreement adopted by those limited partners holding more than a majority of the Common Units of the Partnership on March 28, 2012, previously reported in the Partnership’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011; and (2) changing the amount to be paid per Common Unit per fiscal quarter of the Partnership as a “First Target Distribution” – from $0.292 to $0.288 per Common Unit, and “Second Target Distribution” – from $0.362 to $0.313 per Common Unit, and a “Third Target Distribution” from $0.462 to $0.375 per Common Unit. These changes were made to bring the Partnership in line with current market prices for target distributions.

Based on the Partnership’s historical cash flow constraints and the likelihood of a restriction on distributions as a result of anticipated acquisitions, on March 28, 2012, the General Partner and Limited Partners holding a majority of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership voted to amend the Partnership Agreement to change the commencement of the payment of Common Unit Arrearages from the first quarter beginning October 1, 2011 until an undetermined future quarter to be established by the Board of the General Partner. At the present time, the limited partners of Central Energy, LP and the limited partners of CEGP hold 82.5% of the total issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership and, therefore, control any Limited Partner vote on Partnership matters. The ability of the Partnership to make distributions can be further impacted by many factors including the ability to successfully complete an acquisition, the financing terms of debt and/or equity proceeds received to fund the acquisition and the overall success of the Partnership and its operating subsidiaries.

Amendments to the Registration Rights Agreement

Effective August 1, 2011, the Partnership and the limited partners of Central Energy, LP executed a Registration Rights Agreement. The Registration Rights Agreement provides the limited partners of Central Energy, LP with shelf registration rights and piggyback registration rights, with certain restrictions, for the Common Units held by them (the “Registrable Securities”). The Partnership was required to file a “shelf registration statement” covering the Registrable Securities as soon as practicable after April 15, 2012, and maintain the shelf registration statement as “effective” with respect to the Registrable Securities from the date such registration statement becomes effective until the earlier to occur of (1) all securities registered under the shelf registration statement have been distributed as contemplated in the shelf registration statement, (2) there are no Registrable Securities outstanding or (3) two years from the dated on which the shelf registration statement was first filed.

In connection with the CEGP Investment, CEGP and each of the Warrant Purchasers were added as a Holder of Registrable Securities to the Registration Rights Agreement. In order to include CEGP and the Warrant Purchasers as parties to the Registration Rights Agreement, the parties agreed to amend and restate the Registration Rights Agreement in its entirety. The Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) was approved by more than the needed majority of the parties to the agreement on November 20, 2013, and Registration Rights Agreement became effective upon its execution by all parties on November 26, 2013. The major changes incorporated into the Registration Rights Agreement include the following:

The following chart summarizes our organizational structure at March 15, 2014:

Operations

The Partnership’s only operations are conducted through Regional. The principal business of Regional is the storage, transportation and railcar trans-loading of bulk liquids, including hazardous chemicals and petroleum products owned by its customers. Regional’s facilities are located on the James River in Hopewell, Virginia, where it receives bulk chemicals and petroleum products from ships and barges into approximately 10 million gallons of available storage tanks for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional also receives product from a rail spur which is capable of receiving 18 rail cars at any one time for trans-loading of chemical and petroleum liquids for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional also provides transportation services to customers for products which don’t originate at any of Regional’s terminal facilities. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Current Assets and Operations” below for additional information regarding Regional’s business.

Management continues to focus on the future growth of Central’s assets, and related cash generation, through acquisitions. Our primary business objectives are to achieve stable cash flows and to again make quarterly cash distributions to the Limited Partners. Our plan is to pursue accretive acquisitions of oil and gas assets that can expand our operations. Our acquisition activity is focused on gas transportation and services assets, such as dedicated pipelines and related assets, and natural gas liquids. The Partnership does not intend to acquire producing oil and gas properties, but in some cases they may be a part of the assets associated with a dedicated pipeline. Our acquisitions will be made through subsidiaries of the Partnership created to acquire identified entities or assets. We will use available resources of Central, proceeds from the issuance by Partnership Common Units or new securities, or any combination thereof, and/or third-party debt to fund such acquisitions. It intends to accomplish these objectives by executing the following strategies.

During 2012 and 2013, the General Partner identified a number of potential acquisition opportunities and made indicative offers to purchase several different midstream assets and entered into significant negotiations for the purchase of certain such assets. Several of these opportunities were the subject of an auction process in which the General Partner was not the successful bidder as the result of more aggressive bids being placed by other entities. In each case, management of the General Partner believed that the successful bids exceeded the value of the assets. Management prefers to evaluate opportunities without a competitive bidding process; however, such opportunities are more difficult to identify. Management is continuing to pursue and evaluate acquisition opportunities, but there is no assurance that they will be successful in consummating any of these opportunities.

Midstream Industry Overview

The following diagram illustrates the gathering, processing, marketing and transportation of natural gas, natural gas liquids (“NGLs”) and condensates.

The midstream industry is the link between the exploration for and production of oil and natural gas and the delivery of its components, including NGLs and condensates, to end-user markets. The midstream industry is generally characterized by regional competition based on the proximity of gathering systems and processing plants to producing wells.

Gathering. The gathering process follows the drilling of wells into hydrocarbon bearing rock, sand or other formations. Once a well has been completed, the well is connected to a gathering system. Gathering systems typically consist of a network of small diameter pipelines and, if necessary, compression systems which collect natural gas and NGLs from points near producing wells and transport it to larger pipelines for further transmission.

Compression. Gathering systems are operated at pressures that will maximize the total throughput from all connected wells. Because wells produce at progressively lower field pressures as they age, it becomes increasingly difficult to deliver the remaining production in the ground against the higher pressure that exists in the connected gathering system. Natural gas compression is a mechanical process in which a volume of gas at an existing pressure is compressed to a desired higher pressure, allowing gas that no longer naturally flows into a higher-pressure downstream pipeline to be brought to market. Field compression is typically used to allow a gathering system to operate at a lower pressure or provide sufficient discharge pressure to deliver gas into a higher-pressure downstream pipeline. If field compression is not installed, then the remaining natural gas in the ground will not be produced because it will be unable to overcome the higher gathering system pressure. In contrast, if field compression is installed, a declining well can continue delivering natural gas.

Treating. Natural gas has a varied composition depending on the field, the formation and the reservoir from which it is produced. Natural gas from certain formations is higher in carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or certain other contaminants. Treating plants remove carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or other contaminants from natural gas to ensure that it meets pipeline quality specifications.

Processing. The principal components of natural gas are methane and ethane, but most natural gas also contains varying amounts of heavier NGLs and contaminants, such as water, sulfur compounds, nitrogen or helium. Natural gas produced by a well may not be suitable for long-haul pipeline transportation or commercial use and may need to be processed to remove the heavier hydrocarbon components and contaminants. Natural gas in commercial distribution systems is composed almost entirely of methane and ethane, with moisture and other contaminants removed to very low concentrations. Natural gas is processed not only to remove unwanted contaminants that would interfere with pipeline transportation or use of the natural gas, but also to separate from the gas those hydrocarbon liquids that have higher value as NGLs. The removal and separation of individual hydrocarbons by processing is possible because of differences in weight, boiling point, vapor pressure and other physical characteristics. Natural gas processing involves the separation of natural gas into pipeline quality natural gas and a mixed NGL stream, as well as the removal of contaminants.

Fractionation. NGL fractionation facilities separate mixed NGL streams into discrete NGL products: oil, ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline. Ethane is primarily used in the petrochemical industry as feedstock for ethylene, one of the basic building blocks for a wide range of plastics and other chemical products. Propane is used both as a petrochemical feedstock and as a heating fuel, an engine fuel and an industrial fuel. Normal butane is used as a petrochemical, and as a blend stock for motor gasoline. Isobutane is typically fractionated from mixed butane (a stream of normal butane and isobutane in solution), principally for use in enhancing the octane content of motor gasoline. Natural gasoline, a mixture of pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons, is used primarily as motor gasoline blend stock or petrochemical feedstock.

Condensate Stabilization. Natural gas condensate is a low-density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids found in the raw natural gas stream. Condensate stabilization is a process by which the vapor pressure of the condensate is reduced by removing the lighter hydrocarbons, which are retained and sold. The remaining condensate with lower vapor pressure is better positioned to meet transportation and end-user specifications.

Transportation. Natural gas transportation consists of moving pipeline-quality natural gas from gathering systems, processing plants and other pipelines and delivering it to wholesalers, utilities and other pipelines. NGL transportation consists of moving the raw natural gas stream to fractionation facilities and discrete NGL products to end markets. Condensate is typically transported locally by truck and aggregated into storage tanks before being delivered to end markets via a range of transportation alternatives, including truck, rail, barge or pipeline.

Terminalling, Transportation and Storage. Terminalling and storage facilities and related short-haul pipelines complement transportation systems, refinery operations and refined products transportation, and play a key role in moving refined products to the end-user market. Terminals are generally used for distribution, storage, inventory management, and blending to achieve specified grades of gasoline, filtering of jet fuel, injection of additives, including ethanol, and other ancillary services. Typically, refined product terminals are equipped with automated truck loading facilities commonly referred to as “truck racks” that operate 24 hours a day and often include storage tanks. These automated truck loading facilities provide for control of security, allocations, credit and carrier certification by remote input of data by customers. Trucks pick up refined products at the truck racks and transport them to commercial, industrial and retail end-users. Additionally, some terminals use rail cars or barges to deliver refined products from and receive refined products into the terminal.

Regional Operations

On July 27 2007, the Partnership acquired the business of Regional Enterprises, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Regional has provided liquid bulk storage, transportation and railcar trans-loading of bulk liquids, including hazardous chemicals and petroleum products, to its customers for over 40 years.

The principal business of Regional is the storage, transportation and railcar trans-loading of bulk liquids, including hazardous chemicals and petroleum products owned by its customers. Regional’s facilities are located on the James River in Hopewell, Virginia, where it receives bulk chemicals and petroleum products from ships and barges into approximately 10 million gallons of available storage tanks for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional also receives product from a rail spur which is capable of receiving 18 rail cars at any one time for trans-loading of chemical and petroleum liquids for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional operated a trans-loading facility in Johnson City, Tennessee, with 6 rail car slots until March 31, 2013. Regional also provides transportation services to customers for products which don’t originate at any of Regional’s terminal facilities. The hazardous materials and petroleum products stored, trans-loaded and transported by Regional are owned by its customers at all times.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, Regional’s revenues were divided as set forth below. All dollar amounts are in thousands.

Hauling

Regional transports a broad range of hazardous and non-hazardous liquid products. Hazardous liquids transported by the Company include aluminum sulfate solution, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, aqua ammonia and sodium bisulfate. Non-hazardous materials include crude tall oil, No. 2 oil, No. 6 oil, asphalt additives and vacuum gas oil. Regional’s transportation services are, for the most part, short-haul in nature, with an estimated 85% of Regional’s deliveries being made within 150 miles of its Hopewell, Virginia terminal. Virtually all of Regional’s transportation services are provided within the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

At December 31, 2013, Regional had a fleet of 15 leased tractors, 5 owned tractors and 36 tanker units dedicated to its transportation services. The majority of the tanker units are constructed of stainless steel, with 11 being rubber or chlorobutyl lined, which enables them to carry the toughest corrosives. The tanker fleet also includes four aluminum-constructed petroleum tankers with vapor recovery systems. Management believes that this extensive inventory of tankers enables Regional to service the majority of its customers’ needs. Major maintenance and repairs and tanker inspections have been outsourced.

Effective January 18, 2012, Regional entered into a Vehicle Maintenance Agreement (“Maintenance Agreement”) with Penske Truck Leasing Co., L. P. (“Penske”) for the maintenance of its owned tractor and trailer fleet. The Maintenance Agreement provides for (i) fixed servicing as described in the agreement, which is basically scheduled maintenance, at the fixed monthly rate for tractors and for trailers and (ii) additional requested services, such as tire replacement, mechanical repairs, physical damage repairs, tire replacement, towing and roadside service and the provision of substitute vehicles, at hourly rates and discounts set forth in the agreement. Pricing for the fixed services is subject to upward adjustment for each rise of at least one percent (1%) for the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the United States published by the United States Department of Labor. The term of the agreement is 36 months. Regional is obligated to maintain liability insurance coverage on all vehicles naming Penske as a co-insured and indemnify Penske for any loss it or its representatives may incur in excess of the insurance coverage. Penske has the right to terminate the Maintenance Agreement for any breach by Regional upon 60 days written notice, including failure to pay timely all fees owing Penske, maintenance of Regional’s insurance obligation or any other breach of the terms of the agreement. Regional, in certain instances, continues to perform minor maintenance to its owned tractor and tanker fleet.

On February 17, 2012, Regional entered into a Vehicle Lease Service Agreement with Penske for the purpose of leasing 20 new Volvo tractors (“Leased Tractors”) to be acquired by Penske and leased to Regional, and the outsourcing of the maintenance of the Leased Tractors to Penske (“Lease Agreement”). Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, Regional made a $90,000 deposit, the proceeds for which were obtained from the sale of six of Regional’s owned tractors, and will pay a monthly lease fee per tractor and monthly maintenance charge (“Maintenance Charge”) which is based on the actual miles driven by each Leased Tractor during each month. The Maintenance Charge covers all scheduled maintenance, including tires, to keep the Leased Tractors in good repair and operating condition. Any replacement parts and labor for repairs which are not ordinary wear and tear shall be in accordance with Penske fleet pricing, and such costs are subject to upward adjustment on the same terms as set forth in the Maintenance Agreement. Penske is also obligated to provide roadside service resulting from mechanical or tire failure. Penske will obtain all operating permits and licenses with respect to the use of the Leased Tractors by Regional. In connection with the delivery of the Leased Tractors, Regional sold its remaining owned tractor fleet, except for several owned tractor units which were retained to be used for terminal site logistics.

The term of the Lease Agreement is for seven years. The Leased Tractors were delivered by Penske during May 2012 and June 2012. Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, Regional (i) may acquire any or all of the Leased Tractors after the first anniversary date of the Lease Agreement based on the non-depreciated value of the tractor and (ii) has the option after the first anniversary date of the Lease Agreement to terminate the lease arrangement with respect to as many as five of the Leased Tractors based on a documented downturn in business. On May 31, 2013, Regional notified Penske of its intent to terminate the lease arrangement effective June 15, 2013, for five Leased Tractors as provided in the Lease Agreement due to a decline in Regional’s transportation business. As a result of this partial termination, Regional now leases 15 tractors pursuant to the Lease Agreement. Regional is obligated to maintain liability insurance coverage on all vehicles covered by the Lease Agreement on the same basis as in the Lease Agreement.

The Lease Agreement can be terminated by Penske upon an “event of default” by Regional. An event of default includes (i) failure by Regional to pay timely any lease charges when due or maintain insurance coverage as required by the Lease Agreement, (ii) any representation or warranty of Regional is incorrect in any material respect, (iii) Regional fails to remedy any non-performance under the agreement within five (5) days of written notice from Penske, (iv) Regional or any guarantor of its obligations becomes insolvent, makes a bulk transfer or other transfer of all or substantially all of its assets or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or (v) Regional files for bankruptcy protection or any other proceeding providing for the relief of debtors. Penske may institute legal action to enforce the Lease Agreement or, with or without terminating the Lease Agreement, take immediate possession of the Leased Tractors wherever located or, upon five (5) days written notice to Regional, either require Regional to purchase any or all of the Leased Tractors or make the “alternative payment” described below. In addition, Regional is obligated to pay all lease charges for all such Leased Tractors accrued and owing through the date of the notice from Penske as described above. Penske’s ability to require Regional to purchase the Leased Tractors or make the “alternative payment” would place a substantial financial burden on Regional.

The Lease Agreement can also be terminated by either party upon 120 days written notice to the other party as to any Leased Tractor subject to the agreement on any annual anniversary of such tractor’s in-service date. Upon termination of the Lease Agreement by either party, Regional shall, at Penske’s option, either acquire the Leased Tractor that is the subject of the notice at the non-depreciated value of such tractor, or pay Penske the “alternative payment.” The “alternative payment” is defined in the Lease Agreement as the difference, if any, between the fair market value of the Leased Tractor and such tractor’s “depreciated Schedule A value” ($738 per month commencing on the in-service date of such tractor). If the Lease Agreement is terminated by Penske and Regional is not then in default under any term of the Lease Agreement, Regional is not obligated to either acquire the Leased Tractor that is the subject of the termination or pay Penske the “alternative payment” as described above.

Storage

Regional’s Hopewell facility has a total of 15 tanks, six of which have capacities in excess of one million gallons (“Large Tanks”). As of December 31, 2013, 12 tanks were contracted by customers, including all of the Large Tanks. Two of the tanks currently under contract are not being utilized subject to Regional completing necessary repairs and upgrades in connection with the New Asphalt Agreement. Two tanks are being used by Regional to store truck and boiler fuel. The 12 tanks contracted by customers as of December 31, 2013 have a combined storage capacity of approximately 10.2 million gallons and the two tanks being utilized by the company have a capacity of 10,702 gallons each. All of the tanks are constructed of carbon steel, some insulated and bare, and some with internal walls lined and unlined. Several tanks and all of the associated piping are equipped with heat via either heat transfer fluid (hot oil) or steam. At December 31, 2013, Regional’s provided for the storage of the following products under existing contracts: asphalt, asphalt additives, sodium hydroxide, and No. 2 oil. Regional also stored sodium hydroxide, sodium bisulfate, sulfuric acid and crude tall oil in tank cars at its rail siding.

During 2013, one of the Large Tanks was relined. During 2013, two of the smaller tanks were repaired, upgraded and put into service.

During fiscal 2014, three contracts which provide for the leasing of several of the Large Tanks may be terminated in accordance with the terms of the respective agreements. Regional expects to be able to negotiate extensions to the existing contracts and/or obtain new contracts with current and/or new customers under terms no less favorable than the existing contracts.

Tank Storage and Terminal Services Agreements

On November 30, 2000, Regional renewed a Storage and Product Handling Agreement with a customer with an effective date of December 1, 2000 (“Asphalt Agreement”). The Asphalt Agreement provides for the pricing, terms and conditions under which the customer will purchase terminal services and facility usage from Regional for the storage and handling of the customer’s asphalt products. The Asphalt Agreement was amended on October 15, 2002 with an effective date of December 1, 2002 (“Amended Asphalt Agreement”). The term of the Amended Asphalt Agreement was five years with an option by the customer for an additional five-year renewal term, which the customer exercised in July 2007. After the additional five-year term, the Amended Asphalt Agreement has been renewed automatically for successive one-year terms through November 30, 2013. During July 2013, Regional provided written notice in accordance with the Asphalt Agreement that it did not intend to renew the Asphalt Agreement under the existing terms.

On March 19, 2012, one of the storage tanks leased under the Amended Asphalt Agreement was discovered to have a leak. During April 2012, after removal of the existing product from the Storage Tank, the customer of the Storage Tank was notified by Regional that the Storage Tank was no longer available for use until necessary repairs were completed. During the year ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, Regional recorded losses of approximately $238,000 and $75,000, respectively (“Asphalt Loss”) in connection with the leak. Lost revenue with respect to the Storage Tank totaled approximately $200,000 and $250,000 during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The repairs of the Storage Tank were completed and the tank became operational during November 2013. Regional’s insurance providers have notified Regional that the incident did not fall within insurance coverage limits.

On November 16, 1998, Regional renewed a Terminal Agreement with a customer with an effective date of November 1, 1998, as amended on April 5, 2001, October 11, 2001 and August 1, 2003 (“Fuel Oil Agreement”). The Fuel Oil Agreement provided for the pricing, terms and conditions under which Regional provided terminal facilities and services to the customers for the delivery of fuel oil. Pursuant to the Fuel Oil Agreement, Regional agreed to provide three storage tanks, certain related pipelines and equipment, and at least two tractor tankers to the customer on an exclusive basis, as well as access to Regional’s barge docking facility. Under the terms of the Fuel Oil Agreement, the customer paid an annual tank rental plus a product transportation fee calculated on a per 100 gallon basis, each subject to annual adjustment for inflation. Regional agreed to deliver a minimum daily quantity of fuel oil on behalf of the customer. During December 2008, the customer and Regional negotiated a new Fuel Oil Agreement whereby Regional was only required to provide two storage tanks through May 2009 and one storage tank through November 30, 2011, which was subsequently extended through February 28, 2014. In addition, under the new Fuel Oil Agreement, the customer paid an annual tank rental plus a product transportation fee calculated on a per gallon basis, each subject to annual adjustment for inflation.

On September 27, 2007, Regional entered into a terminal agreement with a customer with an effective date of June 1, 2008 and an expiration date of May 30, 2013 (“Hydroxide Agreement”). The Hydroxide Agreement provided for the pricing, terms, and conditions under which Regional will provide terminal facilities and services to the customer for the receipt, storage and distribution of sodium hydroxide. On May 21, 2013, the Hydroxide Agreement was extended to August 31, 2013. On July 11, 2013, the parties entered into a new terminal agreement effective June 28, 2013 and an expiration date of June 27, 2016, subject to being automatically renewed in one-year increments unless terminated upon 120 days advance written notice by either party (“New Hydroxide Agreement”). Under the terms of the New Hydroxide Agreement, either party may cancel the agreement at any time by providing 120 days advance written notice after the one year anniversary of the effective date.

Pursuant to the New Hydroxide Agreement, Regional agrees to provide two storage tanks, certain related pipelines and equipment, as well as access to Regional’s barge docking and rail facilities. In exchange for use of Regional’s facilities and services, the customer pays an annual fixed tank rental fee and variable fees based on excess of certain minimum levels of thru-put, plus a product transportation fee calculated on a per run basis, each subject to annual adjustment for inflation. Regional also contracts with this customer to provide other transportation and trans-loading services of specialty chemicals.

On March 1, 2012, Regional entered into a services agreement with a customer with an effective date of March 1, 2012 and a termination date of February 28, 2015, subject to being automatically renewed in one-year increments unless terminated upon 180 days advance written notice by either party (“SGR Agreement”). The SGR Agreement provided for the pricing, terms, and conditions under which Regional would provide terminal facilities and services to the customer for the receipt, storage and distribution of No. 6 oil. Pursuant to the SGR Agreement, Regional provided one storage tank, certain related pipelines and equipment, necessary tractor tankers, as well as access to Regional’s barge docking and rail facilities. In exchange for use of Regional’s facilities and services, the customer paid an annual tank rental amount, plus loading and unloading fees. As part of the lease, Regional insulated the tank and made other modifications to the tank and barge line. During October 2013, the SGR Agreement was terminated. Please see Item 3 – Legal Proceedings – SGR Energy LLC for additional information regarding the termination of the SGR Agreement.

During January 1, 2013, Regional entered into a services agreement with a customer with an effective date of January 1, 2013 and a termination date of December 31, 2015 (“Asphalt Additive Agreement”). The customer has the sole discretion to extend the term of the Asphalt Additive Agreement prior to expiration for up to two successive one-year terms upon providing Regional 90 days advance written notice prior to expiration of the Asphalt Additive Agreement. The Asphalt Additive Agreement provides for the pricing, terms, and conditions under which Regional will provide terminal facilities and services to the customer for the receipt, storage and distribution of an asphalt additive. Pursuant to the agreement, Regional agrees to provide one storage tank, certain related pipelines and equipment, necessary tractor tankers, as well as access to Regional’s barge docking and rail facilities. In exchange for use of Regional’s facilities and services, the customer pays an annual tank rental amount, plus loading and unloading fees.

On October 31, 2013, Regional and a new customer entered into an agreement (“New Asphalt Agreement”) with a commencement date of December 1, 2013 or the date that Regional completes certain rail upgrades as more fully described in the New Asphalt Agreement, whichever was later. The New Asphalt Agreement provides for the pricing, terms and conditions under which the customer will purchase terminal services and facility usage from Regional for the storage and handling of the customer’s asphalt products. In connection with the New Asphalt Agreement, Regional will be required to fund during the first nine months of the New Asphalt Agreement up to $465,000 for refurbishments of certain assets currently idle and modifications to the existing facilities to provide for greater efficiencies and extended logistical capabilities. The term of the New Asphalt Agreement is four years from the commencement date and automatically extends for additional 2-year periods unless either party provides 180 days written notice to cancel. During the term of the New Asphalt Agreement, Regional agrees to provide up to five storage tanks and certain related equipment, including rail siding, to the customer on an exclusive basis as well as access to Regional’s barge docking facility. The New Asphalt Agreement commenced on January 1, 2014.

During November 2013, Regional entered into a services agreement with a customer with an effective date of November 1, 2013 and a termination date of April 30, 2014 (“Second Asphalt Additive Agreement”). The Second Asphalt Additive Agreement automatically renews for 90 days unless either party provides 60 days written notice to terminate prior to expiration. The Second Asphalt Additive Agreement provides for the pricing, terms, and conditions under which Regional will provide terminal facilities and services to the customer for the receipt, storage and distribution of an asphalt additive. Pursuant to the agreement, Regional agrees to provide one storage tank, certain related pipelines and equipment, necessary tractor tankers, as well as access to Regional’s barge docking and rail facilities. In exchange for use of Regional’s facilities and services, the customer pays an annual tank rental amount, plus loading and unloading fees. In connection with the Second Asphalt Additive Agreement, Regional has the right of first refusal to provide trucking services to the customer, provided Regional’s rates are competitive.

Port Facility

Regional’s port is located 75 miles upriver from the Port of Hampton Roads. The draft of the location is 24 feet at mean low water, and the turning basin is greater than 600 feet. The company’s loading dock is parallel to the main shipping channel of the James River with berthing dolphin clusters approximately 210 feet apart. Mooring dolphins are also available for vessels up to 600 feet in length. The facility can handle one vessel at a time. The loading dock is served by two six-inch and one 10-inch steel pipeline connecting the dock to various tanks in the facility.

Trans-loading

Regional currently provides trans-loading services utilizing its rail sidings, off-loading facilities and truck racks located in Hopewell, Virginia, to transfer products from ships, barges, railcars and storage tanks to tanker trucks. Regional owns the siding tracks and has 18 railcar slots at its Hopewell facility, with Norfolk Southern conducting switching operations. The siding tracks and railcar slots are accessed through an open-access switch owned by the City of Hopewell and served by Norfolk Southern and CSX. While many of the railcar slots are not exclusively held by customers, the ability of Regional to accept additional rail cars are limited based on the railcar slot availability at Regional at the time and the flexibility that existing customers are willing to provide. Regional has agreed to make 18 rail car slots available to its customers pursuant to contracts in effect at December 31, 2013. As described below, Regional is currently planning to upgrade its rail facilities to accommodate an additional 5 railcars.

Prior to March 31, 2013, Regional maintained a trans-loading facility in Johnson City, Tennessee, where it leased siding tracks and six railcar slots. Switching operations for the Johnson City facility were provided by East Tennessee Railway, which services tracks over which both the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads operate. Regional stored sulfuric acid in tank cars positioned at the six railcar slots in Johnson City. These bulk liquids were transferred from the railcar siding to trucks by the use of a mobile truck rack. Regional ceased operations at the Johnson City facility on March 31, 2013, as a result of the decision by Regional’s sole customer for the Johnson City site not to renew its agreement (which expired on March 31, 2013) as a result of the shut-down of a nearby processing plant for which that customer was supplying product out of the Johnson City site. Regional deployed the Regional owned equipment from the Johnson City site to the Hopewell facility once operations ceased.

Open rail access to the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines offers competitive rail economics and flexibility for Regional’s customers. Customers who utilize Regional’s rail trans-loading services typically do so because either their own rail service is at full capacity or Regional’s strategic location provides them with an important distribution point not available in their own distribution system. Trans-loading products, either from storage tanks or tankers, in railcar quantities, provide a logistical pricing advantage over long-haul transportation in tanker trucks. Steam heat or compressed air is available at each railcar spot.

Upgrades

In connection with the New Asphalt Agreement described above under “Storage”, Regional is required to complete upgrades at the Hopewell location (“Asphalt Upgrades”), subject to the Regional Upgrade Commitment amount (see below) as follows; (a) expand its rail car loading/unloading capabilities to provide for the loading and/or unloading of up to 10 railcars in a single switch within a 24 hour period, (b) provide for the ability of the hot oil heater and steam boiler to operate on natural gas, (c) refurbish and place into service two smaller idle tanks, and (d) upgrade its terminal automation system to provide the ability to control and monitor the loading of asphalt and additive to desired amounts. Under the terms of the New Asphalt Agreement, Regional has agreed to fund up to $465,000 (“Regional Upgrade Commitment”) during fiscal 2014 in connection with the Asphalt Upgrades. Per the terms of the New Asphalt Agreement, the parties have agreed that in the event the total amount of the Asphalt Upgrades exceed the Regional Upgrade Commitment, then the parties shall negotiate to (a) determine if any of the Asphalt Upgrades should be modified or (b) the parties shall reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement for the assumption of any additional funding commitments by either party. Currently, Regional estimates that the Regional Upgrade Commitment is insufficient to complete all of the Asphalt Upgrades and the parties have begun discussing a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

Future Expansion

In connection with the New Asphalt Agreement, Regional has taken steps towards expanding its capabilities and services and improving the costs to operate at its Hopewell location. In addition, Regional has sought opportunities to open future satellite operations similar the Johnson City facility operation which was closed in March 2013, in cooperation with potential customers seeking new or alternative trans-loading facilities near their end-customers. There is approximately 2.25 acres of undeveloped acreage at Regional’s Hopewell facility which could be used to accommodate construction of up to an additional 4.2 million gallons of storage capacity. The company is in continuous dialogue with its existing and potential customers about expansion opportunities and the financial viability of a number of proposals. Regional’s does not currently have the capital resources to pursue any of these opportunities should they arise absent funding from a customer or other source.

Property

Regional owns 8.5 acres of land on which its Hopewell, Virginia facility is located. The property is pledged as collateral under the Hopewell Loan. Improvements on the land include the port facilities, storage tanks and rail trans-loading facilities. The company also has a 5,000 square foot facility which houses the offices from which it provides most of its management, administrative and marketing operations and formerly housed its maintenance operation. The Company leases two facilities to park its tractors and tankers and also has concrete pads at its Hopewell facility to park pre-loaded tanker units on the property.

Customers

Regional’s customers lease storage space for hazardous chemicals and petroleum products and/or utilize the company’s transportation and trans-loading services. The company has long-term contracts with a number of customers. Please see “Tank Storage and Terminal Services Agreements” for details regarding the long-term contracts of Regional. The company’s transportation and trans-loading services are completed within one week of the customer order and are billed upon completion.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, General Chemical Corporation, Suffolk Sales, and SGR Energy LLC accounted for approximately 16%, 15% and 11% of Regional’s revenues, respectively, and approximately 14%, 13% and 8% of Regional’s accounts receivable, respectively. MeadWestVaco Specialty Chemicals, Inc., accounted for 7% of Regional's revenues and 15% of Regional's accounts receivables. Honeywell International, Inc. accounted for 3% of Regional’s revenues and 22% of Regional’s accounts receivables.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, Suffolk Sales, SGR Energy LLC, and MeadWestvaco Specialty Chemicals, Inc., accounted for approximately 22%, 16% and 15% of Regional’s revenues, respectively, and approximately 33%, 0% and 13% of Regional’s accounts receivable, respectively. Noble Oil Services, Inc., accounted for 3% of Regional's revenues and 18% of Regional's accounts receivables.

A substantial part of Regional’s revenues and profits come from a few customers. In 2013, 41% of Regional’s revenues were from three customers: Suffolk Sales, SGR Energy LLC and MeadWestvaco Specialty Chemicals, Inc. As of January 1, 2014, five customers contracted for eleven of Regional storage tanks, and one of those customers has contracted for five of those tanks.

Regional obtained four new tank rental customers and lost two tank rental customers during calendar year 2013. In addition, two tank customers extended the lease contracts which were to expire during 2013 into 2014 and later. During fiscal 2014, four contracts which provide for the leasing of several of the Large Tanks are subject to expiration. Regional expects to be able to negotiate extensions to the existing contracts and/or obtain new contracts with current and/or new customers under terms no less favorable than the existing contracts. Regional expects that the ongoing improvements being performed at the Hopewell facility, including improved operating costs and expanded product logistic capabilities, will enable Regional to attract additional potential customers for its storage facilities and provide the ability to increase overall revenues.

Competition

The storage and transportation industry is highly competitive. Regional faces competition from other storage terminals and transportation companies that may be able to supply its customers with refined products and chemicals on a more competitive basis, due to terminal location, price, versatility and services provided. Also, to the extent the Partnership executes its growth strategy, Regional may face competition for refined product supply sources. Regional’s current competition is primarily independent terminal and distribution companies. In the future, as the Partnership executes its growth strategy, competition could include integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies and large distribution companies with marketing and trading arms. Competition in the mid-Atlantic region is affected primarily by the volumes of refined products and chemicals located in the region and by the availability of refined products and chemicals and the cost of transportation to end customers located in the region.

Regional has identified only one competitor in the mid-Atlantic region that offers all of the services provided by the company – A&R Logistics in Chesapeake, Virginia. Other companies offer some component of the services provided by Regional. For example, Allied Terminals in Norfolk, Virginia is a competitor for tank storage services, Atlantic Bulk Carriers, Quality Carriers, Oakley Logistics and Oakley Tank Lines, and Hillcrest Transportation provide tank truck hauling services in the region, and RSI Leasing Inc. (in Petersburg, Virginia) and CSX (in Richmond, Virginia) are competitors for rail trans-loading services. Several of these companies are larger than Regional and have financial and technical resources and staffs substantially larger than the company. Regional is able to compete with these companies and other competitors on quality of service and the fact that it can provide all needed services for the handling of hazardous liquids, including bulk storage, delivery of such liquids to or from storage by sea, rail and truck and railcar trans-loading.

Regional is also affected by competition for availability of specialized equipment. The purchase of certain trucking equipment, including tankers, requires significant lead time and possible higher prices to obtain. Accordingly, we may not be able to bid for additional business which requires equipment not currently available to us. We also encounter strong competition from other independent operators and from companies in securing trained personnel. Many of these competitors have financial and technical resources and staffs substantially larger than ours.

Insurance

Terminals, storage tanks and similar facilities may experience damage as a result of an accident or natural disaster. These hazards can cause personal injury and loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, pollution or environmental damage and suspension of operations. In addition, claims exposure in the motor carrier industry consists of cargo loss and damage, third-party casualty and workers’ compensation. Regional maintains insurance policies to cover losses incurred as a result of its transportation and trans-loading activities, pollution liability and business interruption, as well as workers compensation, property, boiler and equipment, and personal injury coverage. However, such insurance does not cover every potential risk associated with its operations, and we cannot ensure that such insurance will be adequate to protect Regional’s assets, customers and employees from all material expenses related to potential future claims for personal and property damaged, or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at commercially reasonable prices. All of the companies which provide coverage to Regional are rated “A-” or better by A. M. Best Company; however, there can be no assurance that insurance companies providing coverage to Regional will not become insolvent. The Company has been able to obtain what it believes to be adequate insurance coverage for 2014 and is not aware of any matters which would significantly impair its ability to obtain adequate insurance coverage at market rates for its operations in the foreseeable future.

Safety and Security

Regional performs preventive and normal maintenance on all of its storage tanks, pipelines and terminals, and makes repairs and replacements when necessary or appropriate. It also conducts routine and required inspections of those assets as required by regulations. The Hopewell facility has response plans, spill prevention and control plans, all as required by applicable regulation, and other programs to respond to emergencies. The company continually strives to maintain compliance with applicable air, solid waste and wastewater regulations. Please see “Environmental Matters and Government Regulation” below for additional information regarding the regulatory scheme with which the company must comply.

Regional is subject to the Compliance, Safety and Accountability (“CSA”) program of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which was fully implemented in 2010 to enforce the current motor carrier safety regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”). CSA replaces the DOT’s prior safety measurement, Safestat, in an effort to improve the safety of commercial vehicles through proactive prevention to ultimately reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities. The components of CSA include the measurement of motor carriers and drivers in seven behavior analysis and safety improvement categories, as well as evaluation and intervention programs. Based on the published carrier scores for the first five categories of measurement updated in March 2014, Regional continued to demonstrate a better than average safety reputation, scoring well below the alert thresholds in all basic scoring categories. Unsatisfactory CSA scores could result in a DOT intervention or audit, resulting in the assessment of fines or penalties. Enforcement of CSA may lead to a decline in available drivers and trucking companies. This industry safety dynamic could provide an opportunity for qualified carriers to gain market share.

Regional employs a full-time, hands-on, safety manager who is in the field insuring that our programs and training are being upheld to the highest standards. Based on a February 27, 2014 report, the company’s “out-of-service” rates, which are a part of the CSA scoring system, for vehicle inspections, driver inspections and hazardous materials are 7.1%, 5.9% and 0%, respectively, compared to national averages of 20.7%, 5.5% and 4.5%, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, Regional had only one reportable OSHA incident resulting in 21 days of lost work time. To date, the company has had no reportable incidents in 2014.

Employees

As of December 31, 2013, Regional had a total of 26 full and part-time employees, consisting of 10 drivers, 7 terminal operators, one mechanic and 8 office staff. During 2013, our driver utilization rate was 85%. Regional’s driver turn-over rate is 36% at the present time as compared to an industry average of 50%. None of the Company’s employees are members of any labor union, and there has been no effort to organize Company employees in either 2012 or 2013.

Tax Structure

Regional’s assets and operations are conducted within a C-Corp for federal income tax purposes. The Partnership believes that a portion of Regional’s income could be considered as “qualified income” as defined under Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Regional believes that income derived from the storage of Asphalt, Asphalt Additives and No. 2 Oil would constitute “qualifying income.” The Partnership is exploring options regarding the reorganization of some or all of its Regional assets into a more efficient tax structure to take advantage of the tax savings that could result from the “qualified income” being generated at the Partnership level rather than at the Regional level. The Partnership will evaluate the potential alternatives to determine the most efficient tax structure and operational feasibility of such proposed changes before determining whether any of Regional’s assets will be reorganized to the Partnership. Please see Note J to the Partnership’s Audited Consolidated Financial Statements in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for a more detailed discussion of the impact of the Partnership not having “qualified income.”

Government Regulation

Regional’s operations are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Its operations are subject to the same environmental laws and regulations as other companies in the refined products and petrochemical transportation industry. As a licensed contract or common carrier, Regional is subject to various laws and regulations, including those of the DOT and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as described above. Regional has also been subject to cargo security and transportation regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) since 2001 and regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) since 2002. In addition, the company’s operations are subject to oversight and regulation by a number of federal agencies, including the United State Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the United States Department of Labor, Federal Railroad Administration and the United States Army Corp of Engineers. The laws and regulations enforced by these agencies may:

This regulatory burden increases Regional’s cost of doing business and consequently affects profitability. In addition, Congress and federal and state agencies frequently revise environmental laws and regulations, and any changes that result in more stringent and costly waste handling, disposal and clean-up requirements for the petrochemical transportation industry could have a significant impact on our operating costs. Management believes that Regional substantially complies with all current applicable environmental laws and regulations and that its continued compliance with existing requirements will not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operations. However, we cannot predict how future environmental laws and regulations may impact Regional’s properties or operations.

To comply with regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state and local government authorities, Regional maintains a number of permits, licenses and registrations with applicable federal, state and local administrative agencies, including the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Department and the Kentucky Highway Department. Regional also maintains a discharge contingency plan, approved spill prevention control and countermeasures plan, and approved storm water discharge plan with the U.S. Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, Regional has developed and maintains integrated contingency plans for port safety with the United States Coast Guard and for hazardous spills with the Environmental Protection Agency. The company also holds permits with the Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility for treatment and disposal of its wastewater generated through rainwater runoff and tanker washing operations.

Environmental compliance is conducted by Regional personnel and outsourced to organizations that have specific certifications and equipment as appropriate. Regional has not been notified of any deficiencies in its environmental practices which have not been remedied to the satisfaction of the responsible regulatory agency. The company had no environmental spills during 2012. In 2012, the company had a spill associated with the leakage from an asphalt storage tank, which has been completely remediated in connection with the repairs to such tank. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, Regional did not incur any material capital expenditures for installation of remediation or pollution control equipment at any of our facilities. Management is not aware of any environmental issues or claims that will require material capital expenditures during 2014 or that will otherwise have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

The applicable federal and state laws are discussed below.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (“RCRA”), and comparable state statutes, regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of “hazardous wastes” and the disposal of non-hazardous wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. We believe that Regional is currently in substantial compliance with the requirements of RCRA and related state and local laws and regulations, and that it holds all necessary and up-to-date permits, registrations and other authorizations to the extent that its operations require them under such laws and regulations. Although we do not believe the current costs of managing Regional’s wastes as they are presently classified to be significant, any legislative or regulatory reclassification of oil and gas development and production wastes could increase our costs to manage and dispose of such wastes.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Authorization Act of 1986 (“CERCLA”), also known as the “Superfund” law, imposes joint and several liability, without regard to fault or legality of conduct, on persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner or operator of the site where the release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance at the site. Under CERCLA, such persons may be liable for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. In addition, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment.

Regional currently owns, leases and operates properties that have been used for the storage of oil, oil products and hazardous chemicals. Although we believe Regional has utilized operating and waste disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hazardous substances, wastes or hydrocarbons may have been released on or under the properties owned or leased by it, or on or under other locations, including off-site locations, where such substances have been taken for disposal. In addition, some of these properties have been operated by third parties or by previous owners or operators whose treatment and disposal of hazardous substances, wastes or hydrocarbons was not under our control. These properties and the substances disposed or released on them may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be required to remove previously disposed substances and wastes, remediate contaminated property or perform remedial plugging or pit closure operations to prevent future contamination.

Water Pollution Control Act. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, and analogous state laws impose restrictions and strict controls on the discharge of pollutants, including oil, oil products and other hazardous chemicals, into waters of the United States. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA or the relevant state. The Clean Water Act also prohibits the discharge of dredge and fill material into regulated waters, including wetlands, unless authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with discharge permits or other requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and analogous state laws and regulations. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act of 1966, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and associated state laws and regulations, regulate emissions of various air pollutants through the issuance of permits and the imposition of other requirements. In addition, the EPA has developed, and continues to develop, stringent regulations governing emissions of toxic air pollutants at specified sources. Any new facilities we construct in the future may be required to obtain permits before work can begin, and existing facilities may be required to incur capital costs in order to comply with new emission limitations. These regulations may increase the costs of compliance for some facilities, and federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Oil Pollution Act. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) requires owners and operators of facilities that could be the source of an oil spill into waters of the U.S. (a term defined to include rivers, creeks, wetlands and coastal waters) to adopt and implement plans and procedures to prevent any such oil spill. OPA also requires affected facility owners and operators to demonstrate that they have at least $35 million in financial resources to pay the costs of cleaning up an oil spill and to compensate any parties damaged by an oil spill. Such financial assurances may be increased to as much as $150 million if a formal assessment indicates such an increase is warranted. Based on annual inspections at the Hopewell Facilities and management’s reviews, the company believes that we are in substantial compliance with all requirements.

Occupational Safety and Health Act. Regional is subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of its employees. OSHA establishes a number of requirements for companies with operations such as Regional, including: providing workplace inspections to ensure that employers are complying with the standards established by OSHA; the provision of personal protective equipment designed to protect against hazards in the workplace (at no cost to the employee); conducting a hazardous materials evaluation of all substances handled by the company (including proper labeling and warnings regarding handling); maintenance of records regarding job-related injuries and illnesses and providing employees access to those records maintained by the company; and reporting of any job-related injury to three or more workers or a fatality within eight hours of the incident. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local governmental authorities, and citizens. Management believes that Regional’s operations are in compliance with OSHA requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances.

Maritime Transportation Security Act. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (“MTSA”) was enacted to protect U.S. ports and waterways from a terrorist attack. It mandates that all vessels operating in U.S. waterways meet specific security requirements and comply with the International Ship and Port Security code. According to the MTSA, all tankers and other vessels considered at high risk of a security incident (e.g., barges, large passenger ships, and cargo and towing vessels) operating in U.S. waters must have certified security plans that address how they would respond to emergency incidents, identify the person authorized to implement security actions, and describe provisions for establishing and maintaining physical security, cargo security, and personnel security. These plans must be updated at least every five years. The MTSA also specifies that all U.S. port facilities deemed at risk for a “transportation security incident,” such as refined petroleum and petrochemical processing and storage facilities, must prepare and implement security plans for deterring such incidents to the “maximum extent practicable.” Approved plans were to be in place by July 1, 2004. The MTSA also requires better coordination on waterfront security between local port security committees and federal agencies. Regional has adopted a security plan meeting the requirements of the MTSA, which plan has been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999. The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 (“MCSA”) was enacted to enhance the safety of motor carrier operations and the nations highway system by amending existing safety laws to strengthen commercial driver licensing and compliance standards. The act created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) as a part of the Department of Transportation and preempted a number of state laws to create uniformity in the application of driver licensing and safety standards. The MCSA establishes qualifying requirements for drivers of commercial motor vehicles; requires employers of drivers of commercial vehicles to maintain a qualification file for each employed driver; establishes rules and regulations which operators of commercial motor vehicles must meet, including offenses which disqualify a driver from operating a commercial motor vehicle, hours of service rules for drivers, and alcohol and drug testing requirements; and inspection, repair and maintenance requirements for motor carrier operators. These rules are enforced by the FMCSA and include the CSA Safety Measurement System discussed under “Regional Enterprises – Safety and Security” above.

Other Laws and Regulation. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “Protocol”) became effective in February 2005. Under the Protocol, participating nations are required to implement programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, typically referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. The United States is not currently a participant in the Protocol, and Congress has resisted recent proposed legislation directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there has been support in various regions of the country for legislation that requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and some states have already adopted legislation addressing greenhouse gas emissions from various sources, primarily power plants. The oil and gas industry is a direct source of certain greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide and methane, and future restrictions on such emissions could impact our future operations. Our operations are not adversely impacted by current state and local climate change initiatives and, at this time, it is not possible to accurately estimate how potential future laws or regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions would impact our business.

Other Federal Laws. Regional is registered as a “small business” with the federal government and has completed its On-line Representations and Certifications Application registration. As a result, the Company is a qualified vendor for storing, transporting and supplying bulk chemical and petroleum products on behalf of U.S. government agencies. Regional may seek contracts with the Department of Defense and the Defense Energy Support Center based on the proximity of its Hopewell facilities to multiple U.S. military bases in the future.

State Laws. Regional is subject to a number of state regulatory schemes, including those created by the Virginia Waste Management Act, the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, the Motor Vehicle Code of Virginia and the regulations adopted by the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board. These laws and regulations provide an added layer of compliance for the management of pollution of state waterways and water quality, air quality and the operation of commercial motor vehicles on the roadways of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Other states in which Regional conducts its business of storing and trans-loading hazardous chemicals and petroleum products for its customers or is transporting such bulk liquids have similar laws that apply to the company. Regional believes that it is generally in compliance with all such laws.

In addition to these federal and state statutes and regulations, future Partnership activities may subject it to both federal and state laws regulating the gathering, treating, processing and transportation of oil, gas and NGLs in interstate commerce and oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.

Terminal Operator Status of Regional Facility

In May 2011, Regional was contacted by the IRS regarding whether its Hopewell, Virginia facility would qualify as a “terminal operator” which handles “taxable fuels” and accordingly is required to register through a submission of Form 637 to the IRS. Code Section 4101 provides that a “fuel terminal operator” is a person that (a) operates a terminal or refinery within a foreign trade zone or within a customs bonded storage facility or, (b) holds an inventory position with respect to a taxable fuel in such a terminal. In June 2011, an agent of the IRS toured the Hopewell, Virginia facility and notified the plant manager verbally that he thought the facility did qualify as a “terminal operator.” As a result, even though Regional disagrees with the IRS agent’s analysis, it elected to submit, under protest, to the IRS a Form 637 registration application in July 2011 to provide information about the Hopewell facility. Regional believes that its Form 637 should be rejected by the IRS because (1) the regulations do not apply to Regional’s facility, (2) the items stored do not meet the definition of a “taxable fuel” and (3) there were no taxable fuels being stored or expected to be stored in the foreseeable future that would trigger the registration requirement. Regional had not received a response with respect to its Form 637 submission or arguments that it is not subject to the Requirements.

During December 2012, Regional received notification from IRS’ appeals unit (“Appeals Unit”) that the above matter was under review. A telephonic meeting took place in January 2013 whereby the Appeal Unit determined that Regional did not meet the conditions of a terminal operator which handled taxable fuels and that the matter was dismissed. During March 2013, Regional received formal notification from the IRS that the matter was dismissed with no further action required by Regional. As indicated above, should Regional’s operations in the future include activities which qualify Regional as a terminal operator which handles taxable fuels as defined in the Code, Regional would be subject to additional administrative and filing requirements, although the costs associated with compliance are not expected to be material and Regional would be subject to penalties for the failure to file timely with the IRS any future required reports or forms.

Properties

The Partnership does not own any property other than Regional’s Hopewell facility. It reimburses the General Partner for office space utilized by executive officers of the General Partner. Presently, Katy Resources LLC, an affiliate of G. Thomas Graves III, Chairman of the Board of the General Partner, provides the office space utilized as the Partnership’s corporate office location and which is the primary location for certain individuals that are performing services on behalf of the Partnership, including Messrs. Denman and Graves. Rover Technologies LLC, an affiliate of Mr. Ian Bothwell, the General Partner’s Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, provides office space for Mr. Bothwell in Manhattan Beach, California, where Mr. Bothwell resides.

Partnership Employees

The Partnership has no employees. At December 31, 2013, Regional employed personnel in connection with the operation of its businesses as described under the caption “Operations – Regional Enterprises – Employees” above. The business of the Partnership is managed by the General Partner. The General Partner employs all persons, other than the employees of the Partnership’s operating subsidiaries, including executive officers, necessary for the operation of the Partnership’s business. The General Partner currently has four employees.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Limited partner interests are inherently different from capital stock of a corporation, although many of the business risks to which the Partnership is subject are similar to those that would be faced by a corporation engaged in a similar business. The following are some of the important factors that could affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our actual results could differ materially from estimates contained in our forward-looking statements. We may encounter risks in addition to those described below. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial, may also adversely impair or offset our business results of operation, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Internal Controls

We have identified various material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses have not been remediated, and we cannot assure you that other material weaknesses will not be identified in the future.

As a result of the circumstances giving rise to weaknesses in our accounting practices and personnel as discussed in “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures” below, the Audit Committee of our General Partner, and the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner have concluded that, as of December 31, 2013, we had material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting. As a result, our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal controls over financial reporting were not effective at such date. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that creates a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

In addition, management believes that Central continues to have material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting subsequent to December 31, 2013. Please see “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures” for a detailed discussion of the material weaknesses as of December 31, 2013, and material weaknesses as of subsequent periods. Moreover, we cannot assure you that additional material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting will not arise or be identified in the future or that such weaknesses will be remediated in the near term. If any material weaknesses result in material misstatements in our financial statements, we may be required to restate those financial statements and, could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, leading to a decline in the price of the Common Units.

We cannot assure you that the Common Units will be re-listed, or that once re-listed, they will remain listed.

As a result of our filing of the periodic report for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 with the SEC without the financial statements included in the report being reviewed by an independent accounting firm, our failure to file our periodic reports for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009 with the SEC, and our inability to meet several of the listing requirements of NASDAQ (including the market value of our Common Units, Partners’ equity and minimum bid price for our Common Units), the Partnership was unable to comply with the listing standards of NASDAQ and its Common Units were suspended from trading and formally de-listed effective March 1, 2010. As a result, our Common Units are currently listed for trading on OTC Pink. At the present time, we do not meet the requirements necessary for listing the Common Units with a National Securities Exchange. We intend to re-list the Common Units with a National Securities Exchange that offers the Partnership an exemption from registration of the Common Units under state securities laws as soon as we meet the necessary qualification requirements. We do not anticipate meeting these requirements in the near future, and there can be no assurance that we will ever meet the necessary qualification requirements.

Our over-the-counter market listing with OTC Pink, OTC Markets Group, Inc., or any National Securities Exchange in the future, is dependent on our ability to comply timely with our SEC reporting obligations in the future, as well as meeting the listing requirements of those organizations. If we cannot maintain compliance with these requirements, then the price of our Common Units will likely be adversely affected and there may be a decrease in the liquidity of our Common Units.

The circumstances which gave rise to the previous delay in filing the required periodic reports with the SEC continue to create the risk of litigation against the Partnership and the General Partner, which could be expensive and could damage our business.

No class actions or shareholder derivative lawsuits relating to the Partnership’s previous delayed filings with the SEC for the calendar years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010, have been brought against the Partnership, the General Partner, the executive officers or directors of the General Partner or any Affiliate to date. However, companies that have failed to timely file reports as required by law face a greater risk of litigation or other actions, and there can be no assurance that such a suit or action relating to each filing delay will not be initiated against the Partnership, the General Partner or our current or former officers, managers, directors or other personnel in the future. Any such litigation or action may be time consuming and expensive, and may distract management from the conduct of our business. Any such litigation or action could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and may expose us to costly indemnification obligations to current or former officers, managers, directors, or other personnel, regardless of the outcome of such matter.

Risks Related to Our Business

To fund our capital expenditures, we will be required to use cash generated from our operations, additional borrowings or the issuance of additional equity or debt securities, or some combination thereof, which will limit our ability to make distributions.

The use of cash generated from operations to fund capital expenditures will reduce cash available for distribution to our Unitholders. The Partnership’s ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future equity or debt offerings will be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering and the covenants in our existing debt agreements, including the Hopewell Loan Agreement, as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond management’s control. The Partnership’s failure to obtain the funds for necessary future capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions.

Even if the Partnership is successful in obtaining the necessary funds, the terms of such financings could limit its ability to make distributions to Unitholders, either directly or indirectly. The General Partner anticipates that any financing of its next acquisition will include some form of limitation on the Partnership’s ability to make distributions on its Common Units until such time as the acquired operations have been stabilized and the Partnership has built adequate cash reserves for its operations. If the Partnership is not able to receive sufficient operating cash from its subsidiaries, our ability to make distributions to Unitholders at the then-current distribution rate could be adversely affected. In addition, incurring additional debt may significantly increase the Partnership’s interest expense and financial leverage. Issuing additional Common Units or other Partnership securities may result in significant Unitholder dilution thereby increasing the aggregate amount of cash required to maintain the then-current distribution rate. Any of these events could limit our ability to make distributions at the then-current distribution rate.

Based on the Partnership’s expected cash flow constraints and the likelihood of a restriction on distributions as a result of anticipated acquisitions, on March 28, 2012, the General Partner and Limited Partners holding a majority of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership voted to amend the Partnership Agreement to change the commencement of the payment of Common Unit Arrearages from the first quarter beginning October 1, 2011, until an undetermined future quarter to be established by the Board of Directors of the General Partner. At the present time, the limited partners of Central Energy, LP and the limited partners of CEGP collectively hold 82.5% of the total issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership and, therefore, control any Limited Partner vote on Partnership matters. The ability of the Partnership to make distributions can be further impacted by many factors including the ability to successfully complete an acquisition, the financing terms of debt and/or equity proceeds received to fund the acquisition and the overall success of the Partnership and its operating subsidiaries.

In addition to eliminating the obligation to make payments of any unpaid minimum quarterly distributions until an undetermined future date to be established by the Board of the General Partner, the General Partner expects that the minimum quarterly distribution amount and/or the target distribution levels will be adjusted to a level which reflects the existing economics of the Partnership and provides for the desired financial targets, including Common Unit trading price, targeted cash distribution yields and the participation by the General Partner in incentive distribution rights. The Partnership’s current cash flow will not support the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.25 per Common Unit as set forth in the Partnership Agreement. As a result, management anticipates adjusting the current minimum quarterly distribution in connection with its next acquisition to more accurately reflect the cash flows of the Partnership and the additional Common Units or other securities issued in connection with such acquisition. In connection with an acquisition, the General Partner will be able to better determine the future capital structure of the Partnership and the amounts of “distributable cash” that the Partnership may generate in the future. The establishment of a revised target distribution rate may be accomplished by a reverse split of the number of Partnership Common Units issued and outstanding and/or a reduction in the actual amount of the target distribution rate per Common Unit.

The price for petroleum and petrochemical products the resulting supply patterns of such products, and the need for our storage and transportation assets, are very volatile. A change in prices could cause a decline in our cash flow from operations by impacting the sale of the petroleum and petrochemical products which we store and distribute.

The petroleum and petrochemical product markets are very volatile, and we cannot predict future demand or pricing. Prices for petroleum and petrochemical products may fluctuate widely in response to relatively minor changes in the supply of and demand for such products, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control, such as:

Our revenue, profitability and cash flow depend upon the prices of and demand for petroleum and petrochemical products, as well as the competitive capabilities of Regional’s management and assets. A change in prices can significantly affect our financial results and impede our growth. In particular, changes in the price for oil, refined petroleum products and petrochemicals, and the resulting fluctuation in demand, will reduce the amount of cash flow available for capital expenditures, limit our ability to borrow money or raise additional capital, and impair our ability to make distributions. If we raise our distribution levels in response to increased cash flow during periods of relatively high product demand, we may not be able to sustain those distribution levels during subsequent periods of lower demand.

The business of Regional is dependent on several major customers. The loss of any one of these major customers could have an adverse effect on the revenue and business of the Partnership.

A substantial part of Regional’s revenues and profits come from a few customers. For example, 41% of Regional’s revenues in 2013 were from three customers: Suffolk Sales, SGR Energy LLC and MeadWestvaco Specialty Chemicals, Inc. As of January 1, 2014, five customers contract for the 11 Regional tanks which were under contract and one of those customers has contracted for five of those tanks.

In addition, during fiscal 2014, four contracts which provide for the leasing of several of the Large Tanks are subject to expiration. The failure to quickly identify a new customer for vacant tanks and/or the loss of any one of Regional’s existing customers without replacement business quickly identified under terms no less favorable than the existing contracts could have a material adverse effect on the revenue, profit and overall business of the company.

If the Partnership is unable to make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms from third parties, its future growth will be limited and any acquisitions which it makes may reduce, rather than increase, its cash flows and ability to make distributions to Unitholders.

A significant portion of the Partnership’s strategy to grow its business and increase distributions to Unitholders is dependent on management’s ability to make acquisitions that result in an increase in cash flow and are accretive to projected distribution levels. The acquisition component of our growth strategy is based, in large part, on our expectation of ongoing divestitures of gathering, transportation and storage assets by industry participants. A material decrease in such divestitures would limit our opportunities for future acquisitions and could adversely affect our ability to grow our operations and increase cash distributions to Unitholders. If we are unable to make acquisitions, because we are unable to identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase contracts, we are unable to obtain financing for these acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, or we are outbid by competitors, our future growth and ability to increase distributions will be significantly impacted. As an example, during 2012 and 2013, the General Partner identified a number of potential acquisition opportunities and made indicative offers to purchase several different midstream assets and entered into significant negotiations for the purchase of certain of those assets. Several of these opportunities were the subject of an auction process in which the General Partner was not the successful bidder as the result of more aggressive bids being placed by other entities. Furthermore, even if we do consummate acquisitions that we believe will be accretive in nature, they may in fact result in a decrease in cash flow in early years due to the obligation to retire acquisition financing. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including, among other things:

If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and results of operations may change significantly, and Unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that we will consider in determining whether to make a particular acquisition and the sources and uses of funds and other resources for any such acquisitions.

Due to the Partnership owning only one operating entity, any adverse developments in its industry or its limited operating area would have a significantly greater impact on results of operations and possible distributions to Unitholders.

Currently, the Partnership’s only operating entity is Regional. Its business is solely focused on the transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals and petroleum products for distribution to markets in the east central United States. The greatest part of Regional’s operations is conducted within a 150-mile radius of its principal facility in southeastern Virginia. Due to the lack of diversification in assets and the location of those assets, any adverse development in the business of Regional or within its geographic market area would have a significantly greater impact on the Partnership’s results of operations and any cash available for distribution to its Unitholders than if we maintained more diverse businesses and locations.

The Partnership operates in a highly competitive industry and may be unable to compete effectively with larger companies, which may adversely affect our ability to generate sufficient revenue to allow us to make distributions to our Unitholders.

The provision of services to the petroleum and petrochemical industry is intensely competitive and securing equipment and trained personnel is challenging. Central competes with other companies that have greater resources. Many of the Central’s competitors are major and large diversified energy and logistics companies, and possess and employ financial, technical and personnel resources substantially greater than ours. Those companies are able to operate on a much more diversified geographic area and take advantage of synergies associated with size and improved purchasing power, potentially resulting in lower pricing for storage, transportation and other services. In addition, there is substantial competition for investment capital in the industry. These larger companies may have a greater ability to continue expansion of their operations during periods of low demand for petroleum and petrochemical products and to absorb the burden of present and future federal, state, local and other laws and regulations. Central’s inability to compete effectively with larger companies could have a material adverse impact on our business activities, financial condition and results of operations.

Central’s future debt levels and contingent obligations may limit our flexibility to obtain additional financing and pursue other business opportunities and may affect our ability to make future distributions.

As of December 31, 2013, the Partnership had approximately $2.5 million of debt resulting from the Hopewell Loan Agreement. In addition, Regional is obligated under the Penske Lease Agreement to make monthly lease payments for the Leased Tractors and funding commitments in connection with the New Asphalt Agreement of $465,000. The Hopewell Loan Agreement is secured by all of the assets of Regional and a pledge of Regional’s common stock to Hopewell by the Partnership. If the Penske Lease Agreement is terminated as a result of a default by Regional, Regional could be required to purchase the Leased Tractors at their fair market value or make the “alternative payment”, each which would place a substantial financial burden on Regional. Lastly, the Partnership may be obligated to pay the remaining 2012 IRS Penalties of $142,000 if its appeal is unsuccessful. These provisions and the pledge of substantially all of the Partnership’s assets will limit our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes without significant future growth. In the event we are able to secure additional debt in the future, it could have important consequences to us, including:

Our ability to service indebtedness will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying business activities, acquisitions, investments and/or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to affect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms or at all.

Regional’s logistics operations are subject to many risks and operational hazards, some of which may result in business interruptions and shutdowns of our facilities and damages for which we may not be fully covered by insurance. If a significant accident or event occurs that results in business interruption or shutdowns for which we are not adequately insured, our operations and financial results could be adversely affected.

Regional’s logistics operations are subject to all of the risks and operational hazards inherent in transporting and storing bulk liquids, petroleum products and hazardous chemicals, including:

These risks, most of which are beyond management’s control, could result in substantial losses due to personal injury and/or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment resulting in business interruptions or shutdowns of our facilities, and pollution or other environmental damage and fines. Any such event or unplanned shutdown could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. A serious accident at Regional’s facilities could result in serious injury or death to employees of Regional, customers or contractors and could expose us to significant liability for personal injury claims and reputational risk. The location of our facilities near populated areas, including residential areas, commercial business centers and industrial sites, could significantly increase the level of damages resulting from these risks.

On March 19, 2012, one of Regional’s storage tanks that stored asphalt was discovered to have a leak. During April 2012, after removal of the existing product from the storage tank, the storage tank was taken out of service. During the year ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, Regional recorded losses of approximately $238,000 and $75,000, respectively in connection with the leak. Lost revenue with respect to the storage tank totaled approximately $200,000 and $250,000 during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The repairs of the storage tank were completed and the tank became operational during November 2013. Regional’s insurance providers have notified Regional that the incident did not fall within insurance coverage limits.

In addition, during the recent 2013-2014 winter season, the Hopewell, Virginia area experienced significant winter weather, including snow, ice and rainstorms, all of which contributed to delays and temporary shut-down of services.

Regional stores and transports hazardous petrochemical products to and from its facilities. If its safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving these hazardous petrochemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or result in the shutdown of our facilities.

Regional stores and transports hazardous petrochemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, sodium bisulfate, ferric sulfate, hydrochloric acid, aqua ammonia and sulfuric acid, to and from its facilities. An accident involving any of these petrochemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or evacuation of areas near an accident. An accident could also result in third-party property damage or shutdown of our port and rail facilities, or cause us to expend significant amounts in excess of our insurance coverage, where applicable, to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities. As a result, an accident involving any of these chemicals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Regional is not fully insured against all risks. For example, pollution and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. We may also elect not to obtain insurance if we believe that the cost of available insurance is excessive relative to the perceived risks presented. Losses could, therefore, occur for uninsurable or uninsured risks or in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. Moreover, insurance may not be available in the future at commercially reasonable costs and on commercially reasonable terms. Changes in the insurance markets due to terrorist attacks and hurricanes have made it more difficult for us to obtain certain types of coverage. We may not be able to obtain the levels or types of insurance we would otherwise have obtained prior to these market changes, and our insurance may contain large deductibles or fail to cover certain hazards or cover all potential losses. Losses and liabilities from uninsured and underinsured events and delay in the payment of insurance proceeds could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our Unitholders.

Regional stores hazardous products on behalf of its customers and is at risk for the costs associated with the clean-up of the facilities used, including removal and disposal of excess product and all resulting waste, sludge and wash-water generated from the cleaning process.

All of Regional’s storage contracts include provisions that upon termination of the contract, the customer is responsible for the clean-up of the storage tank and associated facilities utilized, including removal and disposal of excess product and all resulting waste, sludge and wash-water generated from the cleaning process. Regional does not hold title to any of the products stored by its customers. If a customer were to terminate its storage contract without cleaning the tank, Regional would be responsible to perform the clean-up. Depending on the nature of the product stored, the amount of product left in the storage tank, the existing marketability of the product, and/or the financial condition of the customer, Regional could be exposed to significant financial risks associated with performing the clean-up as a result of the following:

An example of the type of liability that can result from the circumstances discussed above includes Regional’s dispute with SGR Energy LLC. See “Item 3. Legal Proceedings – SGR Energy LLC” for additional details regarding the issues faced by the company.

Regional depends heavily on the availability of fuel for its trucks. Fuel shortages, increases in fuel costs and the inability to collect fuel surcharges or obtain sufficient fuel supplies could have a material adverse effect on Regional’s operating results.

The transportation industry is dependent upon the availability of adequate fuel supplies and the price for those supplies. Regional has not experienced a lack of available fuel but could be adversely impacted if a fuel shortage were to develop or prices increase significantly. Fuel prices have fluctuated significantly in recent years. For example, the average annual price per gallon that Regional paid for fuel in 2011, 2012 and 2013 was $3.86, $4.02 and $3.64, respectively. The average cost of diesel fuel has increased to $3.72 per gallon for the first two months of 2014. All of Regional’s customers, except one, have built in fuel surcharges as part of the overall rate to offset the volatility of fuel prices. Regional’s sole customer which is not charged a fuel surcharge has contracted a fixed rate which is to be reviewed periodically to reflect changes in overall rates and operating costs of Regional. Although revenues from fuel surcharges generally more than offset increases in direct diesel fuel costs, other operating costs have been, and may continue to be, impacted by fluctuating fuel prices. Regional’s customers are also being impacted by fluctuating fuel costs, which could impact their supply patterns in a way that is adverse to Regional’s operations, cash flow and profits. If Regional continues to increase fuel surcharges to its customers, such customers may seek less expensive alternatives. As a result, Regional may be forced to reduce its surcharges which will adversely affect its transportation business and revenues.

The total impact of higher energy prices on other nonfuel-related expenses is difficult to ascertain. Regional cannot predict, with reasonable certainty, future fuel price fluctuations, the impact of higher energy prices on other cost elements, recoverability of higher fuel costs through fuel surcharges, the effect of fuel surcharges on Regional’s overall rate structure or the total price that it will receive from its customers. Whether fuel prices fluctuate or remain constant, operating income may be adversely affected if competitive pressures limit Regional’s ability to recover fuel surcharges.

Regional does not have any long-term fuel purchase contracts or any hedging arrangements to protect against fuel price increases. Significant changes in diesel fuel prices and the associated fuel surcharge may increase volatility in the company’s fuel surcharge revenue and fuel-related costs. Volatile fuel prices will continue to impact the base rate increases Regional is able to secure and could continue to have an adverse effect on its operating results. Significant increases in fuel prices or fuel taxes resulting from economic or regulatory changes which are not offset by freight rate increases or fuel surcharges could have an adverse impact on Regional’s results of operations.

Regional depends heavily on the availability of fuel oil for heating required at its Hopewell terminal. Fuel shortages, increases in fuel costs and the impact of such costs or ability to obtain sufficient fuel supplies could have a material adverse effect on Regional’s operating results.

Some of the products which Regional handles at its Hopewell terminal are required to be heated. Heating requirements are generally higher during the winter months. As a result, some storage tanks and railcar and truck loading and unloading apparatus are designed to receive heat via steam and/or hot oil. Regional’s hot oil heater and steam boiler both operate on fuel oil. In certain instances, Regional utilizes heat to perform other routine facility maintenance and services. For those customers that are not charged for their allocable share of heat related costs, Regional is impacted by higher energy prices which will adversely affect its business and revenues. For those customers which are allocated fuel costs, those customers are impacted by fluctuating fuel costs, which could impact their supply patterns in a way that is adverse to Regional’s operations, cash flow and profits, and they may seek less expensive alternatives. As a result, Regional may be forced to reduce the impact of its fuel charges to retain customers which will adversely affect its business and revenues.

In connection with the New Asphalt Agreement, Regional has taken steps towards expanding its capabilities and services and improving the operating costs at its Hopewell location. As part of the planned upgrades, Regional is planning to provide for the ability of the hot oil heater and steam boiler to operate on natural gas, which would significantly reduce fuel costs to Regional and its customers as well as Regional’s dependency on a single source of fuel for its hot oil heater and steam boiler.

The Partnership is subject to complex federal, state, local and other laws and regulations that could adversely affect the cost, manner or feasibility of conducting our operations.

The Partnership’s operations are subject to complex and stringent laws and regulations by multiple federal, state and local government agencies. In order to conduct Partnership’s operations in compliance with these laws and regulations, we must obtain and maintain numerous permits, approvals and certificates from various federal, state and local governmental authorities. Our historical and projected operating costs reflect the recurring costs resulting from compliance with these regulations, and we do not anticipate material expenditures in excess of these amounts in the absence of future acquisitions, or changes in regulation, or discovery of existing but unknown compliance issues. Please see “Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties – Regional Operations – Government Regulation” for additional information regarding the federal and state laws with which the Partnership must comply.

Additional proposals and proceedings that affect the petroleum and petrochemical products industry are regularly considered by Congress, as well as by state legislatures and federal and state regulatory commissions and agencies and courts. We cannot predict when or whether any such proposals may become effective or the magnitude of the impact changes in laws and regulations may have on our business; however, additions or enhancements to the regulatory burden on our industry generally increase the cost of doing business and affect our profitability. As a result, we may incur substantial costs in order to maintain compliance with these existing laws and regulations. In addition, our costs of compliance may increase if existing laws and regulations are revised or reinterpreted, or if new laws and regulations become applicable to our operations. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations, as interpreted and enforced, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our Unitholders.

The Partnership’s business would be adversely affected if operations at Regional’s storage and distribution facilities experienced significant interruptions. Regional’s business would also be adversely affected if the operations of its customers and suppliers experienced significant interruptions.

Regional’s operations are dependent upon its storage and distribution facilities and its various means of transportation. It is also dependent upon the uninterrupted operations of certain facilities owned or operated by its suppliers and customers. Any significant interruption at our facilities or those of our customers, or the inability to transport products to or from these facilities or to or from our customers for any reason would adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our Unitholders or to make principal and interest payments on our current or future debt obligations. Operations at Regional’s facilities and at the facilities owned or operated by our suppliers and customers could be partially or completely shut down, temporarily or permanently, as the result of any number of circumstances that are not within its control, such as severe weather conditions including hurricanes (which impacted Regional’s operations in 2003 when Hurricane Isabel struck the Atlantic coast and destroyed a storage tank at the Hopewell facility), environmental remediations, labor difficulties and disruptions in the supply of petroleum and petrochemical products to its facilities, demand for such products, or the means of transportation of such products.

As an example, Regional was forced to close its Johnson City facility on March 31, 2013, as a result of the decision by Regional’s sole customer for the Johnson City site not to renew its agreement (which expired on March 31, 2013) as a result of the shut-down of a nearby processing plant for which that customer was supplying product out of the Johnson City site. As a result, Regional’s revenues for 2013 were reduced.

In addition, during the recent 2013-2014 winter season, the Hopewell, Virginia area experienced significant winter weather, including snow, ice and rainstorms, all of which contributed to delays and temporary shut-down of services.

The occurrence or threat of extraordinary events, including domestic and international terrorist attacks, and laws and regulations related thereto may disrupt our operations and decrease demand for our products and services.

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

Chemical-related assets, such as those handled at our terminalling and storage facilities, may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other possible targets in the United States. Federal legislation known as the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, is pending before the Committee on Environment and Public Works in the United States Senate. This legislation, if passed and signed into law, could impose new site security requirements, specifically on chemical facilities, which may increase our overhead expenses. Regional’s business or its customers’ businesses could be adversely affected because of the cost of complying with new security regulations.

New federal regulations have already been adopted to increase the security of the transportation of hazardous chemicals in the United States. We believe we have met these requirements but additional federal and local regulations that limit the distribution of hazardous materials are being considered. We store, ship and receive materials that are classified as hazardous. Bans on movement of hazardous materials through certain cities could affect the efficiency of our logistical operations. Broader restrictions on hazardous material movements could lead to additional investment to produce hazardous raw materials and change where and what products we provide and transport.

The occurrence of extraordinary events, including future terrorist attacks and the outbreak or escalation of hostilities, cannot be predicted, and their occurrence can be expected to continue to affect negatively the economy in general, and specifically the markets for our products. The resulting damage from a direct attack on our assets, or assets used by us, could include loss of life and property damage. Available insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all of the damage incurred or, if available, may be prohibitively expensive.

Regional is subject to many environmental and safety regulations that may result in significant unanticipated costs or liabilities or cause interruptions in our operations.

Regional’s operations involve the handling, transportation and storage of materials that are classified as hazardous or toxic and that are extensively regulated by environmental and health and safety laws, regulations and permit requirements. It may incur substantial costs, including fines, damages and criminal or civil sanctions, or experience interruptions in its operations for actual or alleged violations or compliance requirements arising under environmental laws, any of which could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Regional’s operations could result in violations of environmental laws, including spills or other releases of hazardous substances to the environment. In the event of a catastrophic incident, it could incur material costs. Furthermore, Regional may be liable for the costs of investigating and cleaning up environmental contamination on or from its properties or at off-site locations where it disposed of or arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous materials. Regional owns or leases properties that have been used to store or distribute hazardous chemicals and petroleum products for many years. Many of these properties were operated by third parties whose handling, disposal or release of hydrocarbons and other wastes was not under Regional’s control. If significant previously unknown contamination is discovered, or if existing laws or their enforcement change, then the resulting expenditures could have a material adverse effect on Regional’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Regional’s Hopewell, Virginia facility operates in environmentally sensitive waters where maritime vessel, pipeline and refined product transportation and storage operations are closely monitored by federal, state and local agencies and environmental interest groups. Transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals and petroleum products over water or proximate to navigable waters involves inherent risks and subjects us to the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and similar state environmental laws. Among other things, these laws require Regional to demonstrate our capacity to respond to a spill of up to 100,000 barrels of oil from an above ground storage tank adjacent to water (a “worst case discharge”) to the maximum extent possible. To meet this requirement, we have contracted with various spill response service companies in the areas in which we transport or store refined petroleum and petrochemical products. However, these companies may not be able to adequately contain a “worst case discharge” in all instances, and we cannot ensure that all of their services would be available for our use at any given time. There are many factors that could inhibit the availability of these service providers, including, but not limited to, weather conditions, governmental regulations or other global events. By requirement of state or federal ruling, the availability of these service providers could be diverted to respond to other global events. In these and other cases, we may be subject to liability in connection with the discharge of refined petroleum or petrochemical products into navigable waters.

Regional’s trucking operations are subject to a number of federal, state and local rules and regulations generally governing such activities as authorization to engage in motor carrier operations, safety compliance and reporting, contract compliance, insurance requirements, taxation and financial reporting. Regional could be subject to new or more restrictive regulations, such as regulations relating to engine emissions, drivers’ hours of service, occupational safety and health, ergonomics or cargo security. Compliance with such regulations could substantially reduce equipment productivity, and the costs of compliance could increase our operating expenses.

In January 2004, Regional implemented the current DOT rules regulating driving time for commercial truck drivers. The rules have had a minimal impact upon our operations. However, future changes in these rules, including the proposed revision to the hours of service rules that were published in December 2010, could materially and adversely affect our operating efficiency and increase costs. CSA regulations could potentially result in a loss of business to other carriers, driver shortages, increased costs for qualified drivers, and driver and/or business suspension for noncompliance. CSA scores are available to the general public. Shippers may be influenced by the scores in selecting a carrier to haul their freight and, although Regional is recognized in the industry for its commitment to safety, carriers with better CSA scores may be selected in certain cases. A resulting decline in the availability of qualified drivers, coupled with additional personnel required to satisfy future revisions to hours of service regulations, could adversely impact our ability to hire drivers to adequately meet current or future business needs. Failures to comply with DOT safety regulations or downgrades in our safety rating could have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial condition. Unsatisfactory CSA scores could result in a DOT intervention or audit, resulting in the assessment of fines or penalties. A downgrade in our safety rating could cause our insurance premiums to increase in the future or reduce our ability to find adequate insurance coverage at acceptable rates.

Regional’s drivers and facility workers also must comply with the safety and fitness regulations promulgated by the DOT, including those relating to drug and alcohol testing and hours of service. The TSA has adopted regulations that require all drivers who carry hazardous materials to undergo background checks by the Federal Bureau of Investigation when they obtain or renew their licenses.

Currently, proposed federal, state and regional initiatives that require the measurement and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases) are in various phases of discussion or implementation. These initiatives, if enacted into law, could require us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our facilities. Requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the increased use of renewable fuels could also decrease demand for refined products, which could have an indirect, but material, adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in 2010, the EPA promulgated a rule establishing greenhouse gas emission standards for new-model passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Also in June 2010, the EPA promulgated a rule establishing greenhouse gas emission thresholds for the permitting of certain stationary sources, which could require greenhouse emission controls for those sources. The rule calls for a “stepped” approach to emission thresholds related to the size of a green-house gas emitting entity. Regional would be subject to step 3 of the rule; however, the EPA will not require permits for smaller generators of greenhouse gases under step 3 of the rule or through any other action until at least April 30, 2016. The EPA recently stated that it would maintain the current level of emissions for, and not impose lowered levels of emissions on, “small” sources of emissions. As a result, Regional does not believe it will be required to install new emission control equipment on its facility base on the current pronouncements from the EPA.

Environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permit requirements, and the potential for further expanded laws, regulations and permit requirements may increase our costs or reduce demand for our products and thereby negatively affect our business. Environmental permits required for our operations are subject to periodic renewal and may be revoked or modified for cause or when new or revised environmental requirements are implemented. Changing and increasingly strict environmental requirements and the potential for further expanded regulation may increase our costs and can affect the manufacturing, handling, processing, distribution and use of our products. If so affected, our business and operations may be materially and adversely affected. In addition, changes in these requirements may cause us to incur substantial costs in upgrading or redesigning our facilities and processes, including our waste treatment, storage, disposal and other waste handling practices and equipment. For these reasons, we may need to make capital expenditures beyond those currently anticipated to comply with existing or future environmental or safety laws.

Risks Inherent in an Investment in the Partnership

The Partnership may not make cash distributions during periods when it records net income. The amount of cash distributions that we will be able to distribute to Unitholders will be reduced by the costs associated with general and administrative expenses and reserves that our General Partner believes prudent to maintain for the proper conduct of our business and for future distributions.

Before the Partnership can pay distributions to Unitholders, it must first pay or reserve cash for expenses, including capital expenditures and the costs of being a public company and other operating expenses, and it may reserve cash for future distributions during periods of limited cash flows. The amount of cash available for distribution to Unitholders will be affected by the Partnership’s level of reserves and expenses. The amount of cash the Partnership has available for distribution depends on its cash flow, including cash from financial reserves, working capital or other borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, the Partnership could make cash distributions during periods when it records losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when it records net income.

The estimate of “available cash,” as defined in the Partnership Agreement, is necessary for the Partnership to make a distribution to all Common Units at the target distribution rate and is based on assumptions that are inherently uncertain and are subject to significant business, economic, financial, legal, regulatory and competitive risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated.

The estimate of “available cash,” as defined in the Partnership Agreement, is necessary for the Partnership to make a distribution to all Common Units at the target minimum distribution rate of $0.25 per Common Unit per calendar quarter (or $1.00 per Common Unit per year) and is based on our management’s calculations. This amount is based on assumptions about capital expenditures, expenses, borrowings, the number of issued and outstanding Common Units and other matters that are inherently uncertain and are subject to significant business, economic, financial, legal, regulatory and competitive risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated. The Partnership’s actual results have differed materially from those set forth in our initial estimates, and, as a result, the Partnership has been unable to make the quarterly distribution to holders of Common Units since the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

We do not have sufficient cash flow from operations to make quarterly distributions on Common Units to our Unitholders, and the General Partner has deferred the date on which Common Unit Arrearages will be paid to an undetermined future quarter to be established by the Board of the General Partner.

Under the terms of our Partnership Agreement, the amount of cash otherwise available for distribution is reduced by Partnership operating expenses, reimbursements made to the General Partner for expenses incurred on behalf of the Partnership, the amount of any cash reserve our General Partner establishes to provide for the proper conduct of our business, meeting any of our obligations arising from any of our debt instruments or other agreements, and compliance with applicable law. The amount of cash the Partnership can distribute to Unitholders and the General Partner principally depends upon the amount of cash generated from its operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:

In addition, the actual amount of cash that the Partnership will have available for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which are beyond management’s control, including:

The Partnership has not made distributions to its Unitholders or the General Partner since August 18, 2008 for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The Partnership currently does not have sufficient available cash to resume making the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.25 per Common Unit or any other amount to its Partners. Similarly, the Partnership does not foresee the ability to make distributions of $0.25 per Common Unit or any other amount to its Partners. Currently the General Partner’s cash reserves are limited and the remaining available amounts (approximately $0.6 million at February 28, 2014) are intended to be used to fund the Partnership’s ongoing working capital requirements, including necessary funding of working capital for Regional. Regional’s operating cash flow is limited to cash available from Regional’s operations. The use of Regional’s available cash from operations is restricted as a result of the payments required on the Hopewell Note and the Penske Lease Agreement, funding of required upgrades to its facilities, funding of other working capital deficits and the required ongoing maintenance of its facilities. Furthermore, if an acquisition is completed, management expects that the terms of any related financing will contain some form of restriction on the Partnership’s ability to make distributions on its Common Units until such time as the acquired operations have been stabilized and the Partnership has built adequate cash reserves for its operations.

Based on the Partnership’s expected cash flow constraints and the likelihood of a restriction on distributions as a result of anticipated acquisitions, on March 28, 2012, the General Partner and Limited Partners holding a majority of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership voted to amend the Partnership Agreement to change the commencement of the payment of Common Unit Arrearages from the first quarter beginning October 1, 2011, until an undetermined future quarter to be established by the Board of the General Partner. At the present time, the limited partners of Central Energy, LP and the limited partners of CEGP collectively hold 82.5% of the total issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership and, therefore, control any Limited Partner vote on Partnership matters. The ability of the Partnership to make distributions can be further impacted by many factors including the ability to successfully complete an acquisition, the financing terms of debt and/or equity proceeds received to fund the acquisition and the overall success of the Partnership and its operating subsidiaries.

The General Partner anticipates revising the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution levels payable to Unitholders.

The General Partner expects that the minimum quarterly distribution amount and/or the target distribution levels will be adjusted to a level which reflects the existing economics of the Partnership and provides for the desired financial targets, including Common Unit trading price, targeted cash distribution yields and the participation by the General Partner in incentive distribution rights. Central’s net cash flow will not support the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.25 as set forth in the Partnership Agreement. As a result, management anticipates adjusting the current minimum quarterly distribution in connection with its next acquisition to more accurately reflect the cash flows of the Partnership and the additional Common Units or other securities issued by the Partnership to finance the acquisition. In connection with an acquisition, the General Partner will be able to better determine the future capital structure of the Partnership and the amounts of “distributable cash” that the Partnership may generate in the future. The establishment of a revised target distribution rate may be accomplished by a reverse split of the number of Partnership Common Units issued and outstanding and/or a reduction in the actual amount of the target distribution rate per Common Unit.

Officers of the General Partner manage all of Central’s business and operations. Failure of such officers to devote sufficient attention to the management and operation of Central’s business may adversely affect financial results and the ability to make distributions to Unitholders.

The executive officers of the General Partner are responsible for managing all of Central’s business and operations. The Partnership does not maintain key person life insurance policies on any personnel. The General Partner has arrangements relating to compensation and benefits with certain of its executive officers through employment contracts. Since the closing of the CEGP Investment, Messrs. Denman, Graves and Weir have agreed to forego receipt of any compensation as a result of concerns over the Partnership’s and the General Partner’s available cash resources. In addition, during December 2013, the Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner agreed to have a portion of his annual salary paid on each anniversary date of his employment agreement. Should the General Partner not be able to obtain sufficient working capital to commence payment of salaries, the likelihood of a change in executive personnel of the General Partner is enhanced. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on its business and the Partnership’s ability to make distributions to Unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement limits our General Partner’s fiduciary duties to holders of Common Units.

The Partnership Agreement contains provisions that modify and reduce the fiduciary standards to which the General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, the Partnership Agreement permits the General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as a general partner, or otherwise free of fiduciary duties to the Partnership and its Unitholders. This entitles the General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires and relieves it of any duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, the Partnership, its affiliates or its limited partners. Examples of decisions that the General Partner may make in its individual capacity include:

By purchasing a Common Unit, a Unitholder is treated as having consented to all provisions in the Partnership Agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

The Partnership Agreement restricts the remedies available to holders of our Common Units for actions taken by the General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Partnership Agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to Unitholders for actions taken by our General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under state fiduciary duty law. For example, the Partnership Agreement:

In connection with a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, any determination by the General Partner must be made in good faith. If an affiliate transaction or the resolution of a conflict of interest is not approved by the Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors, or the General Partner determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the affiliate transaction or conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in subclauses 3 and 4 above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the General Partner acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the Partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to designate the General Partner or its Directors.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, Unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting the Partnership’s business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding its business. Unitholders will not appoint the General Partner or members of its Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of our General Partner are chosen by its members. Furthermore, if the Unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of the General Partner, they will have little ability to remove the General Partner. As a result of these limitations, the price at which the Common Units will trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Even if Unitholders are dissatisfied, it would be difficult to remove the General Partner.

The vote of the holders of at least 80% of all outstanding partnership interests, including the Common Units, voting together as a single class is required to remove the General Partner. Therefore, even if the Unitholders are dissatisfied with the results of the Partnership’s operations, the lack of distributions from the Partnership to Unitholders, the market price if the Common Stock or any other matter, it would be difficult for the Unitholders to remove the General Partner due to the number of Unitholders needed to obtain an 80% affirmative vote.

Control of the General Partner may be transferred to a third party without Unitholder consent.

The General Partner may transfer its interest to a third party for any reason without the consent of the Unitholders. Members of the General Partner are subject to certain restrictions on the transfer of their membership interests in the General Partner. The Unitholders of our General Partner are in a position to replace the Board of Directors and officers of the General Partner as they desire and thereby influence the decisions made by the Board of Directors and officers.

The incentive distribution rights held by our General Partner may be transferred to a third party without Unitholder consent.

The General Partner holds all incentive distribution rights, as defined in the Partnership Agreement, issued by the Partnership and may transfer such incentive distribution rights to a third party at any time without the consent of Unitholders. If the General Partner transfers its incentive distribution rights to a third party but retains its general partner interest, the General Partner may not have the same incentive to grow our Partnership and increase quarterly distributions to Unitholders over time as it would if it had retained ownership of its incentive distribution rights.

The Partnership may issue additional partner interests, including interests that are senior to the Common Units, without Unitholder approval, which would dilute the ownership interests of its existing Unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement does not limit the number of additional partner interests that the Partnership may issue. In addition, the Partnership may issue an unlimited number of partner interests that are senior to the Common Units in right of distribution, liquidation and voting. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

The Partnership Agreement restricts the voting rights of Unitholders, other than the General Partner and its affiliates, owning 20% or more of our Common Units, which may limit the ability of significant Unitholders to influence the manner or direction of management.

The Partnership Agreement restricts Unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any Common Units held by a person, entity or group that owns 20% or more of any class of Common Units then outstanding, other than our General Partner, its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such Common Units with the prior approval of the Board of our General Partner, cannot vote on any matter, subject to waiver of such restriction by the General Partner in its sole discretion. The Partnership Agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of Unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about Partnership operations, other than the information specified in the Partnership Agreement, as well as other provisions limiting Unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.

The liability of our Unitholders may not be limited if a court finds that Unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. The Partnership is organized under Delaware law and conducts business in a number of other states. The limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership may not have been clearly established in some of the other states in which we may do business. Unitholders could be liable for Partnership obligations as if they were a general partner in the event a court or government agency determines that:

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions under certain circumstances.

Under certain circumstances, Unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, the Partnership may not make a distribution to Unitholders if the distribution would cause its liabilities to exceed the fair value of its assets. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the Partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of an impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. A purchaser of Common Units who becomes a substituted limited partner is liable for the obligations of the transferring limited partner to make contributions to the Partnership that are known to such purchaser of Common Units at the time it became a substituted limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from our Partnership Agreement.

The General Partner’s discretion in establishing cash reserves may reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to Unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement requires our General Partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves that it determines are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, the Partnership Agreement permits the General Partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of Partnership business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which the Partnership is a party, or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to Unitholders.

Our General Partner has a limited call right that may require you to sell your Common Units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time the General Partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the Common Units or any other class of partner interests issued by the Partnership, our General Partner has the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the Common Units (or any other class of partner interests issued by the Partnership) held by persons other than the General Partner or its affiliates at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, you may be required to sell your Common Units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive a return on your investment. You may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of your Common Units.

Our General Partner, or any transferee holding incentive distribution rights, may elect to cause the Partnership to issue Common Units and general partner units to it in connection with a resetting of the target distribution levels related to such incentive distribution rights, without the approval of the Conflicts Committee of the General Partner or the consent of Unitholders. This could result in lower distributions to Unitholders.

The General Partner has the right, at any time when Unitholders have received distributions for each of the four most recently completed quarters and the amount of each such distribution did not exceed the adjusted operating surplus of the Partnership for such quarter, to reset the minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels based on the average of the distributions actually made for the two most recent quarters immediately preceding the reset election. Following a reset election, the minimum quarterly distribution will be adjusted to equal the reset minimum quarterly distribution, and the target distribution levels will be reset to correspondingly higher levels based on percentage increases above the reset minimum quarterly distribution.

If the General Partner elects to reset the target distribution levels, the holder of the incentive distribution rights will be entitled to receive their proportionate share of a number of Common Units derived by dividing (i) the average amount of cash distributions made by the Partnership for the two full quarters immediately preceding the reset election by (ii) the average of the cash distributions made by the Partnership in respect of each Common Unit for the same period. The General Partner will also be issued the number of partnership units necessary to maintain its 2% general partner’s interest in the Partnership that existed immediately prior to the reset election at no cost to the General Partner. We anticipate that the General Partner would exercise this reset right in order to facilitate acquisitions or internal growth projects that would not be sufficiently accretive to cash distributions per Common Unit without such conversion. It is possible, however, that the General Partner could exercise this reset election at a time when it is experiencing, or expects to experience, declines in the cash distributions it receives related to its incentive distribution rights and may, therefore, desire to be issued Common Units rather than retain the right to receive distributions based on the initial target distribution levels. This risk could be elevated if the incentive distribution rights have been transferred to a third party. As a result, a reset election may cause Unitholders to experience a reduction in the amount of cash distributions that they would have otherwise received had the Partnership not issued new Common Units and general partner interests in connection with resetting the target distribution levels. Additionally, the General Partner has the right to transfer the incentive distribution rights at any time, and such transferee shall have the same rights as the General Partner relative to resetting target distributions if the General Partner concurs that the tests for resetting target distributions have been fulfilled.

The Unitholders who fail to furnish certain information requested by the General Partner or who the General Partner, upon receipt of such information, determines are not “eligible holders” may not be entitled to receive distributions in kind upon liquidation of the Partnership and their Common Units will be subject to redemption.

The General Partner may require each Unitholder to furnish information about his nationality, citizenship or related status in order to determine if such Unitholder is a person qualified to hold an interest in the Partnership and its assets. United States law prohibits certain non-U.S. nationals from holding real property or other assets in the United States. A violation of these laws could jeopardize the Partnership’s status as a “pass-through” entity for federal and state income tax law purposes. In addition, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) requires the sponsor of any entity raising capital to confirm the identity of each investor to the extent practicable. As a result, the General Partner must meet the requirements of the USA Patriot Act and confirm the identity of each Unitholder and its assignee, and the principal beneficial owners of any Unitholder or its assignee, as applicable. The General Partner can rely on the diligence of a third party with respect to any Unitholder or its assignee. A detailed verification of a Unitholder’s (or his assignee’s) identity may not be required where the Unitholder is a recognized financial institution or the Unitholder makes payment for his Common Units from an account held in the Unitholder’s name at a recognized financial institution. As of the date of this Report on Form 10-K, an eligible holder means:

If a Unitholder or its assignee fails to furnish information about his nationality, citizenship or other related status within 30 days after a request for the information, or the General Partner determines, after receipt of the information, that the Unitholder or its assignee is not an eligible holder, the Unitholder or its assignee may be treated as an “ineligible holder.” An ineligible holder does not have the right to direct the voting of his Common Units (the General Partner has the right to vote such Common Units) and may not receive distributions in kind upon a liquidation of the Partnership. Furthermore, the General Partner has the right to redeem all of the Common Units of any ineligible holder or of any Unitholder or assignee that fails to furnish the requested information. The redemption price will be the average of the closing sales price per Common Unit for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately prior to the date of redemption and such price will be paid in cash or by delivery of a promissory note, as determined by the General Partner in its sole discretion.

Common Units held by persons who are non-taxpaying assignees will be subject to the possibility of redemption.

To avoid any adverse effect on the maximum applicable rates chargeable to customers by us under FERC regulations, or in order to reverse an adverse determination that has occurred regarding such maximum rate, our Partnership Agreement gives the General Partner the power to amend the agreement. If the General Partner determines that the Partnership not being treated as an association taxable as a corporation or otherwise taxable as an entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, coupled with the tax status (or lack of proof thereof) of one or more of our Unitholders, has, or is reasonably likely to have, a material adverse effect on the maximum applicable rates chargeable to customers by us, then the General Partner may adopt such amendments to the Partnership Agreement as it determines are necessary or advisable to obtain proof of the U.S. federal income tax status of our Unitholders (and their owners, to the extent relevant) and permit us to redeem the Common Units held by any person whose tax status has or is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the maximum applicable rates or who fails to comply with the procedures instituted by the General Partner to obtain proof of the U.S. federal income tax status.

Risks Related to Tax Matters

The tax treatment of the Partnership depends on its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as it not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) were to treat the Partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or it was to become subject to additional entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then the cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in the Common Units depends largely on the Partnership being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. The Partnership has not requested, and does not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this or any other tax matter affecting the Partnership.

Despite the fact that the Partnership is a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as this one to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. Although management does not believe, based upon our current operations, that the Partnership will be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, a change in its business (or a change in current law) could cause the Partnership to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject it to taxation as an entity.

If the Partnership were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, it would pay federal income tax on its taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35% and would likely pay state income tax at varying rates. Distributions to Unitholders would generally be taxed again as dividends, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to Unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon the Partnership as a corporation, its cash available for distribution to Unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of the Partnership as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to the Unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of the Common Units.

Current law may change so as to cause the Partnership to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to entity-level taxation. For example, legislation has been proposed that would eliminate partnership tax treatment for certain publicly traded partnerships. In addition to this proposed legislation which has been stalled in the House of Representatives, on February 21, 2012, the President of the United States published a proposed “overhaul” of federal tax law that would include the elimination of partnership tax treatment for certain publicly traded partnerships and would also eliminate many of the tax benefits available to companies in the oil and gas industry. Although such legislation would not apply to the Partnership as currently proposed, it could be amended prior to enactment in a manner that does apply to the Partnership. The President’s proposal for tax reform would apply to the Partnership. Management is unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in the Common Units.

In addition, because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states, including Texas, are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, margin and other forms of taxation. For example, beginning in 2008, the Partnership is subject to a new entity level tax on any portion of its income that is generated in Texas. Specifically, the Texas margin tax is imposed at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of our gross income that is apportioned to Texas. Imposition of such a tax on the Partnership by Texas, or any other state, will reduce the cash available for distribution to Unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects the Partnership to additional amounts of entity-level taxation, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on the Partnership.

The Partnership prorates its items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of its Common Units each month based upon the ownership of the Common Units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date Common Units are transferred from one party to another. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among Unitholders.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of Common Units each month based upon the ownership of our Common Units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date Common Units are actually transferred. The use of this method may not be permitted under existing Treasury regulations, and, accordingly, our counsel is unable to opine as to the validity of this method. If the IRS were to challenge this method or new Treasury regulations were issued, the Partnership may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among Unitholders.

An IRS contest of the Partnership’s federal income tax positions may adversely affect the market for the Common Units, and the cost of any IRS contest will reduce the cash available for distribution to Unitholders.

The Partnership has not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to its treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes or any other tax matter affecting it. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions which the Partnership takes with respect to tax matters. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of our counsel’s conclusions or positions the Partnership takes. A court may not agree with all of our counsel’s conclusions or positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for Common Units and the price at which they trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne indirectly by Unitholders and the General Partner because the costs will reduce cash available for distribution to Partners.

Unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of Partnership income even if they do not receive any cash distributions.

Because Unitholders will be treated as partners to whom the Partnership will allocate taxable income which could be different in amount than the cash we distribute, Unitholders may be required to pay any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on their share of Partnership taxable income even if they receive no cash distributions from the Partnership. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from the Partnership equal to their share of Partnership taxable income or even equal to the tax liability which results from that income.

Tax gain or loss on disposition of Common Units could be more or less than expected.

If Unitholders sell their Common Units, they will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those Common Units. Because distributions in excess of Unitholders’ allocable share of Partnership net taxable income decrease the tax basis in their Common Units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the Common Units they sell will, in effect, become taxable income to them if they sell such Common Units at a price greater than their tax basis in those Common Units, even if the price they receive is less than their original cost. In addition, because the amount realized includes a Unitholder’s share of Partnership nonrecourse liabilities, if Unitholders sell their Common Units, they may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash they receive from the sale.

The Partnership has been assessed penalties by the Internal Revenue Service for failure to file timely its 2012 tax return and the failure to file electronically its 2012 tax return.

During November 2013, the Partnership received a notice from the IRS that indicated the Partnership was liable for penalties (“2012 IRS Penalties”) of approximately $296,000 in connection with the late filing of the 2012 federal partnership tax return (“2012 Tax Return”) and approximately $142,000 in connection with failing to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically. During January 2014, the Partnership submitted an appeal to the IRS to have the 2012 IRS Penalties removed. On February 25, 2014, the Partnership received written notice from the IRS that the appeal of the late filing penalty was approved and the appeal of the failure to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically was denied. The Partnership believes that there existed reasonable cause for the Partnership’s failure to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically and as a result the Partnership intends to appeal the decision to deny. There can be no assurance that the Partnership’s request for relief from the remaining 2012 IRS Penalties will be approved by the IRS or that the Partnership will have adequate financial resources to pay the remaining 2012 IRS Penalties.

The Partnership is required to deliver Schedules K-1 for the 2013 Tax Year to its Unitholders by April 15, 2014, unless the Partnership applies for an automatic extension to September 15, 2014, which it intends to do. However, there is no certainty that the Schedules K-1 for the 2013 Tax Year will be completed and delivered timely to Unitholders by the Partnership if there is a lack of operating capital.

Regional could be deemed a “terminal operator” that handles “taxable fuels” pursuant to requirements of the Code and, in such event, will be subject to administrative and reporting requirements that will further increase operating expenses.

In May 2011, Regional was contacted by the IRS regarding whether its Hopewell, Virginia facility would qualify as a “terminal operator” which handles “taxable fuels” and accordingly is required to register through a submission of Form 637 to the IRS. Code Section 4101 provides that a “fuel terminal operator” is a person that (a) operates a terminal or refinery within a foreign trade zone or within a customs bonded storage facility or, (b) holds an inventory position with respect to a taxable fuel in such a terminal. In June 2011, an agent of the IRS toured the Hopewell, Virginia facility and notified the plant manager verbally that he thought the facility did qualify as a “terminal operator.” As a result, even though Regional disagrees with the IRS agent’s analysis, it elected to submit, under protest, to the IRS a Form 637 registration application in July 2011 to provide information about the Hopewell facility. Regional believes that its Form 637 should be rejected by the IRS because (1) the regulations do not apply to Regional’s facility, (2) the items stored do not meet the definition of a “taxable fuel” and (3) there were no taxable fuels being stored or expected to be stored in the foreseeable future that would trigger the registration requirement. Regional had not received a response with respect to its Form 637 submission or arguments that it is not subject to the Requirements.

During December 2012, Regional received notification from IRS’ appeals unit (“Appeals Unit”) that the above matter was under review. A telephonic meeting took place in January 2013 whereby the Appeal Unit determined that Regional did not meet the conditions of a terminal operator which handled taxable fuels and that the matter was dismissed. During March 2013, Regional received formal notification from the IRS that the matter was dismissed with no further action required by Regional. As indicated above, should Regional’s operations in the future include activities which qualify Regional as a terminal operator which handles taxable fuels as defined in the Code, Regional would be subject to additional administrative and filing requirements, although the costs associated with compliance are not expected to be material and Regional would be subject to penalties for the failure to file timely with the IRS any future required reports or forms.

Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning Common Units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in Common Units by tax-exempt entities, such as individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), other retirement plans and non-U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations that are exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be “unrelated business taxable income” and will be taxable to them. Distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes at the highest applicable effective tax rate, and non-U.S. persons will be required to file United States federal tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income.

The Partnership will treat each purchaser of Common Units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual Common Units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of the Common Units.

Because the Partnership cannot match transferors and transferees of Common Units and because of other reasons, it will take depletion, depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to Unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of Common Units and could have a negative impact on the value of Common Units or result in audit adjustments to Unitholders’ tax returns.

Unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and tax return filing requirements in states where they do not live as a result of investing in Common Units.

In addition to federal income taxes, Unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which the Partnership does business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Unitholders will likely be required to file foreign, state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these jurisdictions. Furthermore, Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. The Partnership currently owns assets in Virginia, which state imposes a personal income tax. As management makes acquisitions or expand our business, the Partnership may own assets or do business in additional states that impose a personal income tax or that impose entity level taxes to which the Partnership could be subject. It is a Unitholders responsibility to file all United States federal, foreign, state and local tax returns.

A Unitholder whose Common Units are loaned to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of Common Units may be considered as having disposed of those units. If so, he would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those Common Units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because a Unitholder whose Common Units are loaned to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of Common Units may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units, he may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the Unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan to the short seller, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those Common Units may not be reportable by the Unitholder and any cash distributions received by the Unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Our counsel has not rendered an opinion regarding the treatment of a Unitholder where Common Units are loaned to a short seller to cover a short sale of Common Units; therefore, Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan to a short seller are urged to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from loaning their Common Units.

The Partnership may adopt certain valuation methodologies that may result in a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction between the General Partner and the Unitholders. The IRS may successfully challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of Common Units.

When the Partnership issues additional units or engages in certain other transactions, the Partnership will determine the fair market value of its assets and allocate any unrealized gain or loss attributable to its assets to the capital accounts of Unitholders and the holders of the incentive distribution rights. The Partnership’s methodology may be viewed as understating the value of its assets. In that case, there may be a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction between certain Unitholders and the General Partner, which may be unfavorable to such Unitholders. Moreover, subsequent purchasers of Common Units may have a greater portion of their Internal Revenue Code Section 743(b) adjustment allocated to Partnership tangible assets and a lesser portion allocated to Partnership intangible assets. The IRS may challenge Partnership methods, or allocations of the Section 743(b) adjustment attributable to Partnership tangible and intangible assets, and allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction between the General Partner and certain Unitholders.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to Unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from the Unitholders’ sale of Common Units and could have a negative impact on the value of the Common Units or result in audit adjustments to the Unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of Partnership capital and profits interests during any 12-month period will result in the termination of the Partnership for federal income tax purposes.

If the Partnership experiences a technical termination under Treas. Reg. § 1.708-1(b)(1)(B), the Partnership would be required to file separate tax returns for each period, including Schedule K-1. The IRS has announced a relief procedure whereby a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated can request publicly traded partnership termination relief. If, upon application, the IRS grants such relief, the partnership will have additional time to file its short period tax year returns to a maximum period which mirrors the required due date of the partnership’s end of year tax return. This relief is based on the difficulty that publicly traded partnerships have in identifying their limited partners which is dependent on information obtained from brokerage companies that are not provided until after the end of the calendar year. There is no assurance that such relief would be granted and that the extended filing due date granted will mirror the partnerships filing due date for its end of year tax return. If relief is not granted as requested, the Partnership would be subject to additional costs for the preparation and filing of the additional tax return and Schedule K-1.

Compliance with and changes in tax laws could adversely affect our performance.

The Partnership is subject to extensive tax laws and regulations, including federal, state, and foreign income taxes and transactional taxes such as excise, sales/use, payroll, franchise, and ad valorem taxes. New tax laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted that could result in increased tax expenditures in the future. Many of these tax liabilities are subject to audits by the respective taxing authority. These audits may result in additional taxes as well as interest and penalties.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

TransMontaigne Dispute

Rio Vista Operating Partnership L.P. (“RVOP”) is a subsidiary of the Partnership which held liquid petroleum gas assets located in southern Texas and northern Mexico contributed (“LPG Assets”) to it by Penn Octane Corporation upon formation of the Partnership. It sold all of the LPG Assets to TransMontaigne in two separate transactions. The first transaction included the sale of substantially all of its U.S. assets, including a terminal facility and refined products tank farm located in Brownsville, Texas and associated improvements, leases, easements, licenses and permits, an LPG sales agreement and its LPG inventory in August 2006. In a separate transaction, RVOP sold its remaining LPG Assets to affiliates of TransMontaigne, including Razorback L.L.C. (“Razorback”) and TMOC Corp., in December 2007. These assets included the U.S. portion of two pipelines from the Brownsville terminal to the U.S. border with Mexico, along with all associated rights-of-way and easements and all of the rights for indirect control of an entity owning a terminal site in Matamoros, Mexico. The Purchase and Sale Agreement dated December 26, 2007 (“Purchase and Sale Agreement”) between Razorback and RVOP provided for working capital adjustments and indemnification under certain circumstances.

In connection with previous demands for indemnification by Razorback received by RVOP under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, RVOP and certain of its affiliated parties (“Seller Affiliates”) and Razorback and certain of its affiliated parties (“Buyer Affiliates”) executed a Compromise Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) effective as of October 14, 2013. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Seller Affiliates paid $125,000 to Razorback in full satisfaction of all claims asserted by Razorback or Buyer Affiliates against RVOP or Seller Affiliates as of the date of the Settlement Agreement or any future claims that may be asserted by Razorback or any of the Buyer Affiliates against RVOP or any of the Seller’s Affiliates other than the claim asserted against Razorback by Cardenas Development Co. (“Cardenas Claim”). RVOP remains responsible for any Losses (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) resulting from the Cardenas Claim in an amount not to exceed $50,000 (“Contingent Payment”). In connection with the Settlement Agreement, each of the parties released each other from any other future claims that may arise as a result of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (except for the Contingent Payment). For the year ended December 31, 2013, RVOP has recorded other income of approximately $108,000 representing the reduction of accrued reserve amounts to reflect RVOP’s maximum remaining exposure under the Settlement Agreement of $50,000.

SGR Energy LLC

On July 1, 2013, Regional filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, “Regional Enterprises, Inc. v. SGR Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:13v418” (“Litigation”) in connection with SGR Energy, LLC’s (“SGR”) failure to make the required payments due to Regional under the terms of a services agreement between the parties pursuant to which Regional stores and transports product for SGR. In connection with the Litigation, Regional was seeking payment of all amounts owing under the services agreement including the costs associated with removal of the product stored at Regional’s facilities on behalf of SGR and the cleanup of the facilities as provided for under the terms of the services agreement.

On August 16, 2013, SGR filed an answer and counterclaim to the Litigation (“Counterclaim”), which denied certain claims made by Regional in the Litigation and made counter claims against Regional including, breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. SGR was seeking actual and compensatory damages.

On August 20, 2013, Regional and SGR entered into a Settlement and Mutual Release agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, SGR agreed to make payments to Regional of all past due amounts in exchange for Regional agreeing to release the product from storage. SGR also agreed to place proceeds to be received from the sale of the product in the amount of $290,000 (“Escrow Amount”) into an escrow account to be distributed by an escrow agent (“Escrow Agent”) in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

The Escrow Amount was to be used to secure SGR’s obligation to clean and vacate the tank by October 1, 2013, and the payment of the minimum rents as prescribed under the services agreement, which provide for rents to continue until the time that SGR has satisfactorily completed the cleanup of the facilities and vacated the tank. In connection with the Settlement Agreement, SGR and Regional agreed to dismiss the Litigation and Counterclaim without prejudice by agreed stipulation. SGR did not make all of the payments required and did not clean and vacate the tank as prescribed under the Settlement Agreement, and the Escrow Agent did not distribute the Escrow Amount to Regional as prescribed under the Settlement Agreement.

On October 15, 2013, Regional, SGR and the Escrow Agent entered into a final settlement and mutual release agreement (“Final Release”) whereby the parties agreed that Regional would receive $250,000 of the Escrow Amount and SGR would receive $40,000 of the Escrow Amount. In addition, Regional agreed to be responsible for cleaning the tank, although SGR agreed that it would accept responsibility as the generator of any wastes which were collected and disposed of in connection with the cleaning of the facilities and the services agreement was terminated. Under the terms of the Final Release, all parties provided full releases to each other. The Escrow Amount received by Regional was sufficient to cover all the costs required to complete the cleaning of the tank, all amounts owing from SGR as of the date of the Final Release, and to pay the costs of litigation which Regional incurred in connection with the aforementioned litigation.

Terminal Operator Status of Regional Facility

In May 2011, Regional was contacted by the IRS regarding whether its Hopewell, Virginia facility would qualify as a “terminal operator” which handles “taxable fuels” and accordingly is required to register through a submission of Form 637 to the IRS. Code Section 4101 provides that a “fuel terminal operator” is a person that (a) operates a terminal or refinery within a foreign trade zone or within a customs bonded storage facility or, (b) holds an inventory position with respect to a taxable fuel in such a terminal. In June 2011, an agent of the IRS toured the Hopewell, Virginia facility and notified the plant manager verbally that he thought the facility did qualify as a “terminal operator.” As a result, even though Regional disagrees with the IRS agent’s analysis, it elected to submit, under protest, to the IRS a Form 637 registration application in July 2011 to provide information about the Hopewell facility. Regional believes that its Form 637 should be rejected by the IRS because (1) the regulations do not apply to Regional’s facility, (2) the items stored do not meet the definition of a “taxable fuel” and (3) there were no taxable fuels being stored or expected to be stored in the foreseeable future that would trigger the registration requirement. Regional had not received a response with respect to its Form 637 submission or arguments that it is not subject to the Requirements.

During December 2012, Regional received notification from IRS’ appeals unit (“Appeals Unit”) that the above matter was under review. A telephonic meeting took place in January 2013 whereby the Appeal Unit determined that Regional did not meet the conditions of a terminal operator which handled taxable fuels and that the matter was dismissed. During March 2013, Regional received formal notification from the IRS that the matter was dismissed with no further action required by Regional. As indicated above, should Regional’s operations in the future include activities which qualify Regional as a terminal operator which handles taxable fuels as defined in the Code, Regional would be subject to additional administrative and filing requirements, although the costs associated with compliance are not expected to be material and Regional would be subject to penalties for the failure to file timely with the IRS any future required reports or forms.

Other

The Partnership and its subsidiaries may be involved with other proceedings, lawsuits and claims in the ordinary course of its business. We believe that the liabilities, if any, ultimately resulting from such proceedings, lawsuits and claims should not materially affect our consolidated financial results.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Partnership’s Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Common Units

The Common Units representing a Unitholder’s interest in the Partnership began trading on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol “RVEP” on October 1, 2004. Effective March 1, 2010, the Common Units were removed from listing on NASDAQ as a result of the Partnership’s failure to file timely the reports required by federal securities laws and meet the listing requirements of NASDAQ, including the market value of our Common Units, Partners’ equity and the minimum bid price for our Common Units. As a result, our Common Units are listed to trade on OTC Pink.

On December 28, 2010, the Partnership began operating under the name “Central Energy Partners LP.” On March 30, 2011, the Partnership was notified by FINRA that its Common Units would trade under a new ticker symbol – “ENGY” – commencing with the opening of the trading markets on March 31, 2011. The new ticker symbol better reflects the Partnership’s focus on the energy business, rather than the actual name under which it conducts its business.

The following table sets forth the reported high “ask” and low “bid” quotations of the Common Units for the periods indicated. Such quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

On March 6, 2014, the closing bid price of the Common Units as reported on OTC Pink was $0.09 per Common Unit. On March 6, 2014, the Partnership had 19,066,482 Common Units outstanding and approximately 252 holders of record of the Common Units.

Distributions

The Partnership has not made distributions to its Unitholders or the General Partner since August 18, 2008 for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The Partnership currently does not have sufficient available cash to resume making the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.25 per Common Unit or any other amount to its Partners. Similarly, the Partnership does not foresee the ability to make distributions of $0.25 per Common Unit or any other amount to its Partners. Currently the General Partner’s limited cash reserves are expected to be used towards funding the Partnership’s expenses, and Regional’s operating cash flow is limited to cash available from Regional’s operations. The use of Regional’s available cash from operations is restricted as a result of the payments required on the Hopewell Note and the Penske Lease Agreement, funding of required upgrades to its facilities, funding of other working capital deficits and the required ongoing maintenance of its facilities. Furthermore, the use of Regional’s remaining cash from operations, if any, to fund the Partnership’s and the General Partner’s overhead expenses is restricted as a result of the debt covenants associated with the Hopewell Loan Agreement, and the agreement to subordinate the payment of all intercompany receivables and loans to the Hopewell Note. As a result, after Partnership expenses, there is no cash available for distribution to the Partners. Furthermore, the General Partner anticipates that any financing of its next acquisition will include some form of limitation on the Partnership’s ability to make distributions on its Common Units until such time as the acquired operations have been stabilized and the Partnership has built adequate cash reserves for its operations.

Based on the Partnership’s expected cash flow constraints and the likelihood of a restriction on distributions as a result of anticipated acquisitions, on March 28, 2012, the General Partner and Limited Partners holding a majority of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership voted to amend the Partnership Agreement to change the commencement of the payment of Common Unit Arrearages from the first quarter beginning October 1, 2011, until an undetermined future quarter to be established by the Board of Directors of the General Partner. At the present time, the limited partners of Central Energy, LP and the limited partners of CEGP collectively hold 82.5% of the total issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership and, therefore, control any Limited Partner vote on Partnership matters. The ability of the Partnership to make distributions can be further impacted by many factors including the ability to successfully complete an acquisition, the financing terms of debt and/or equity proceeds received to fund the acquisition and the overall success of the Partnership and its operating subsidiaries.

In addition to eliminating the obligation to make payments of any unpaid minimum quarterly distributions until an undetermined future date to be established by its Board of Directors, the General Partner expects that the minimum quarterly distribution amount and/or the target distribution levels will be adjusted to a level which reflects the existing economics of the Partnership and provides for the desired financial targets, including Common Unit trading price, targeted cash distribution yields and the participation by the General Partner in incentive distribution rights. Central’s net cash flow will not support the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.25 as set forth in the Partnership Agreement. As a result, management anticipates adjusting the current minimum quarterly distribution in connection with its next acquisition to more accurately reflect the cash flows of Central and the additional Common Units or other securities issued by the Partnership in connection with such acquisition. In connection with an acquisition, the General Partner will be able to better determine the future capital structure of the Partnership and the amounts of “distributable cash” that the Partnership may generate in the future. The establishment of a revised target distribution rate may be accomplished by a reverse split of the number of Partnership Common Units issued and outstanding and/or a reduction in the actual amount of the target distribution rate per Common Unit.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Not applicable

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion of the Partnership’s liquidity and capital resources should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership and related notes thereto appearing elsewhere herein. References to specific years preceded by “fiscal” (e.g. fiscal 2013) refer to the Partnership’s fiscal year ending December 31.

Current Assets and Operations

Regional Acquisition

On July 27 2007, the Partnership acquired the business of Regional Enterprises, Inc., a Virginia corporation. The principal business of Regional is the storage, transportation and railcar trans-loading of bulk liquids, including hazardous chemicals and petroleum products owned by its customers. Regional’s facilities are located on the James River in Hopewell, Virginia, where it receives bulk chemicals and petroleum products from ships and barges into approximately 10 million gallons of available storage tanks for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional also receives product from a rail spur which is capable of receiving 18 rail cars at any one time for trans-loading of chemical and petroleum liquids for delivery throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Regional operated a trans-loading facility in Johnson City, Tennessee, with 6 rail car slots until March 31, 2013. Regional also provides transportation services to customers for products which don’t originate at any of Regional’s terminal facilities. Certain customers for whom Regional provides storage services also use its transportation services. The hazardous materials and petroleum products stored, trans-loaded and transported by Regional are owned by its customers at all times.

The Partnership funded the acquisition of Regional using the proceeds of a $5 million loan from RB International Finance (USA) LLC, formerly known as RZB Finance LLC (the “RZB Loan”), the proceeds from a $2.5 million loan from the Partnership, the issuance of a $1 million note to the seller and available cash. The seller’s note was satisfied in full on August 27, 2009 in connection with the settlement of a dispute regarding adjustments due on the purchase price of Regional by the Partnership. During March 2013, Regional completed the Hopewell Loan and used proceeds from the Hopewell Loan to repay the RZB Loan in full. Please see “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data - Note F to the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements” for further details regarding the RZB Loan.

Recent Developments

The ownership of the Partnership and General Partner changed on November 17, 2010, and since that date the General Partner’s management has regained and has maintained compliance with the Partnership’s securities and tax reporting obligations. Since the second half of 2011, after regaining compliance with its tax and financial reporting obligations, management’s focus turned to expanding the asset base of the Partnership. The General Partner identified a number of potential acquisition opportunities, made indicative offers to purchase several different midstream assets and entered into significant discussions for the purchase of certain assets. Several of these opportunities were the subject of an auction process in which the General Partner was not the successful bidder as the result of more aggressive bids being placed by other entities. In each acquisition opportunity, management of the General Partner believed that the successful bids exceeded the value of the assets.

Since May 2009, the Partnership’s sole operating subsidiary has been Regional. At the time of the Sale, the General Partner anticipated the need for cash reserves sufficient to allow the Partnership to regain compliance with its delinquent tax and financial reporting requirements and to fund corporate overhead for a reasonable period of time while it identified and completed the acquisition of additional assets that would provide sufficient liquidity to fund its future operations and the various costs incurred by the General Partner in operating the Partnership (including the compliance costs associated with being a publicly-registered entity), acquisition costs (including costs associated with identifying and valuing acquisition targets, performing due diligence reviews and documenting a potential transaction) and other governance activities associated with a publicly-traded entity. Those funds were exhausted by September 2012. During October 2012, the General Partner raised funds for the purpose of covering general overhead which were sufficient in amount to cover such overhead for a six month period with the intent of completing an acquisition within that time frame. By June 2013, management was unsuccessful in identifying an acquisition, and the Partnership and Regional had exhausted all available cash resources.

On November 26, 2013, the Partnership, the General Partner and CEGP executed a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) and certain other transaction documents (“Other Transaction Documents”) all for an aggregate purchase price of $2,750,000 (“Purchase Price”). The PSA and Other Transaction Documents principally provided for: (1) the sale of a 55% interest in the General Partner to CEGP through the purchase of newly issued membership interests of the General Partner by CEGP, and the issuance of 3,000,000 Common Units to CEGP; (2) the issuance of performance warrants that provide the holders thereof with the opportunity, but not the obligation, to acquire, in the aggregate, an additional 3,000,000 Common Units at an exercise price of $0.093478, subject to adjustment, in the event the Partnership successfully completes one or more asset acquisition transactions with an aggregate gross purchase price of at least $20 million within 12 months after closing (“Performance Warrants”); (3) amending and restating the Registration Rights Agreement; (4) amending and restating the Company Agreement; and (5) amending and restating the Partnership Agreement. At the closing of the transaction, net proceeds of $2,350,000 (“Net Proceeds”) were delivered to the General Partner and the Partnership (the Purchase Price less credits totaling $400,000 for prior payments received on July 19, 2013 and August 19, 2013 in connection with stand-still agreements in place until the execution of the PSA (“Stand-Still Payments”). Of the total Purchase Price, the amount of $280,434 of the Purchase Price was allocated to the price paid for the 3,000,000 Common Units and the remaining amount of the Purchase Price, or $2,469,566, was allocated to the value of the 55% Membership Interest of the General Partner, represented by 136,888.89 Units issued to CEGP.

Effective November 26, 2013, CEGP now holds 55% of the issued and outstanding membership interests in the General Partner, and appoints five (5) of the nine (9) Members of the Board of the General Partner. As a result, CEGP controls the General Partner. In addition, CEGP holds 3,000,000 Common Units, which represent 15.7% of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership. Prior to execution of the PSA, Messrs. Imad K. Anbouba and Carter R. Montgomery and the Cushing Fund controlled the General Partner and had controlling authority over the Partnership. CEGP is a newly-formed Texas limited liability company controlled by Messrs. Denman and Graves. Upon the execution of the PSA, Mr. Denman replaced Mr. Imad K. Anbouba as CEO and President of the General Partner, and Mr. Graves was appointed as the Chairman of the Board.

Management continues to focus on the future growth of Central’s assets, and related cash generation, through acquisitions. Our primary business objectives are to maintain stable cash flows and to again make quarterly cash distributions on our Common Units. Our plan is to pursue accretive acquisitions of oil and gas assets that can expand our operations. Our acquisition activity is focused on gas transportation and services assets, such as gas gathering, dehydration and compression systems, pipelines, fractionation and condensate stabilization facilities, and related assets, but may include producing oil and gas properties. Our acquisitions will be made through subsidiaries of the Partnership created to acquire identified entities or assets. We will use available resources of Central, proceeds from the issuance by Central of Common Units or new securities, or any combination thereof, and/or third-party debt to fund such acquisitions. Management does not expect that it will complete an acquisition before the second half of 2014. Despite significant effort, the Partnership has thus far been unsuccessful in completing an acquisition transaction. There can be no assurance that the Partnership will be able to complete an accretive acquisition Please see “Item 1 and 2. Business and Properties – Operations” for further information on management’s future plans.

Results of Operations

The results of operations from continuing operations during the years ended December 2012 and 2013 reflect the results associated with Regional’s storage, trans-loading and transportation business of refined petroleum and petrochemical products and all indirect income and expenses of the Partnership.

For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, Regional’s revenues were divided as set forth below. All dollar amounts are in thousands.

Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared With Year Ended December 31, 2012

(All amounts in thousands)

Revenues. Regional’s revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013 were $4.8 million compared with $5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $0.7 million (13.1%). The decrease in revenues was the result of a decrease in hauling revenues of $1.2 million (33.7%), partially offset by an increase in storage revenues of $0.5 million (34.1%) during the year ended December 31, 2013. Hauling revenues declined during the year ended December 31, 2013 due to increased competition, the reduction in available drivers, the reduction hauling revenues due to the closure of the Johnson City, TN facility and the closure of certain customer facilities for maintenance. The increase in storage revenues was due to higher tank utilization under contracts resulting from a storage tank being fully utilized during the year ended December 31, 2013 although the same tank was idle throughout the year ended December 31, 2012, partially offset by reduced storage revenues associated with the storage tank which was taken out of service in April 2012 and was not put back into service until November 2013, and the transition of one tank customer to another tank customer which effectively did not generate revenues during December 2013.

Cost of Goods Sold. Regional’s cost of goods sold for the year ended December 31, 2013 were $4.0 million compared with $4.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $1.0 million (19.1%). The cost of goods sold during the year ended December 31, 2012 included higher costs associated with the Asphalt Loss and maintenance of tractors and terminal assets over the year ended December 31, 2013. Costs of goods sold related to storage and terminal services did not increase despite the increase in related revenues as the storage and terminal business has mostly fixed costs to operate. The reduction in cost of goods sold was also attributable to the reduced hauling revenues during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared with December 31, 2012, partially offset from increased prices paid for fuel and the fixed cost portion of the newly entered Penske Truck Lease which was entered into in June 2012.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) for Regional during the year ended December 31, 2013 were $1.5 million compared with $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase was the result of higher professional fees incurred in connection with the closing and subsequent financings under the Hopewell Loan, litigation costs and compliance costs, partially offset by reduction of penalties and interest as a result of the abatement of penalties during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared with the year ended December 31, 2012.

The decrease in SG&A expenses for Central of $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared with the same period one year earlier was principally due to the net reduction of tax penalties assessed as a result of the abatement of penalties totaling $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013, decreased professional fees incurred at the Partnership and increased allocations of insurance related costs to Regional from the Partnership during the year ended December 31, 2013, partially offset by increased salary and payroll related expenses in connection with the CEGP Investment.

Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared With Year Ended December 31, 2011

(all amounts in thousands)

Revenues. Regional’s revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012 were $5.5 million compared to $6.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of $1.4 million (20.0%). The decrease was principally due to decreased storage and terminal services revenues resulting (i) from the termination of a customer contract for leasing two tanks and related services which occurred in January 2012, which tanks were not re-leased until March 2012 and January 2013, and (ii) the impact of the Asphalt Loss whereby another tank was out of service during the period April 2012 through December 31, 2012. All three of these tank lease contracts were in full effect during the year ended December 31, 2011. In addition to the decline in storage and terminal services revenues, revenues were also lower during the year ended December 31, 2012 as a result of the reduction of transportation services due to increased competition and the reduction in available drivers during the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011 and reduced special transportation revenues which occurred during the year ended December 31, 2011 and did not occur during the year ended December 31, 2012.

Cost of Goods Sold. Regional’s cost of goods sold for the year ended December 31, 2012 were $0.2 million higher than the cost of goods sold for the year ended December 31, 2011. The cost of goods sold during the year ended December 31, 2012 included additional costs associated with the Asphalt Loss and maintenance of terminal assets over the year ended December 31, 2011. Costs of goods sold related to storage and terminal services did not decrease despite the decrease in revenues described above as the storage and terminal business has mostly fixed costs to operate. The expected reduction in cost of goods sold corresponding to the reduced hauling revenues during the year ended December 31, 2012 compared with the year ended December 31, 2011 was not fully realized as a result of increased prices paid for fuel, increased costs for maintenance of the transportation fleet from January 2012 through May 2012, and the fixed cost portion of the newly entered Penske Truck Lease beginning June 2012 through December 2012 compared with the same period one year earlier.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. SG&A expenses for Regional during the year ended December 31, 2012 were $1.3 million compared to $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of $0.7 million (34.0%). The decrease was the result of lower allocations of costs from the Partnership and decreased professional fees in connection with compliance during the year ended December 31, 2012 compared with the year ended December 31, 2011. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2012, Regional was allocated $0.4 million of costs from the Partnership related to a revision in an estimate for a prior period.

The decrease in SG&A expenses for the Partnership of $0.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2012 compared with the same period one year earlier was principally due to decreased professional fees during the year ended December 31, 2012 as a result of the Partnership’s constraints in cash flows thereby limiting the ability to engage professional services and the overall reduction of compliance services during the year ended December 31, 2012 which involved financial reporting compliance for fiscal year 2012 and tax compliance for fiscal year 2011 compared with the year ended December 31, 2011, which included financial reporting and tax compliance costs for the fiscal years 2008 through 2010, partially offset by the resulting reduction of cost allocations to Regional, which had included an additional allocation amount of $0.4 million to Regional related to a revision in an estimate for a prior period.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since May 2009, the Partnership’s sole operating subsidiary has been Regional. At the time of the Sale, the General Partner anticipated the need for cash reserves sufficient to allow the Partnership to regain compliance with its delinquent tax and financial reporting requirements and to fund corporate overhead for a reasonable period of time while it identified and completed the acquisition of additional assets that would provide sufficient liquidity to fund its future operations and the various costs incurred by the General Partner in operating the Partnership (including the compliance costs associated with being a publicly-registered entity), acquisition costs (including costs associated with identifying and valuing acquisition targets, performing due diligence reviews and documenting a potential transaction) and other governance activities associated with a publicly-traded entity. Those funds were exhausted by September 2012. In connection with the GP Sale during October 2012, the General Partner raised additional funds, which it believed were sufficient to cover general overhead for an additional six months with the intent of completing an acquisition within that time frame. By June 2013, management was unsuccessful in identifying an acquisition and the Partnership and Regional had exhausted all available cash resources.

On November 26, 2013, the Partnership, the General Partner and CEGP executed a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) and certain other transaction documents (“Other Transaction Documents”) all for an aggregate purchase price of $2,750,000 (“Purchase Price”). The PSA and Other Transaction Documents principally provided for; (1) the sale of a 55% interest in the General Partner to CEGP through the purchase of newly issued membership interests of the General Partner by CEGP, and the issuance of 3,000,000 Common Units to CEGP, (2) the issuance of performance warrants that provide the holders thereof with the opportunity, but not the obligation, to acquire, in the aggregate, an additional 3,000,000 Common Units at an exercise price of $0.093478, subject to adjustment, in the event the Partnership successfully completes one or more asset acquisition transactions with an aggregate gross purchase price of at least $20 million within 12 months after closing (“Performance Warrants”), (3) amending and restating the Registration Rights Agreement, (4) amending and restating the Company Agreement, and (5) amending and restating the Partnership Agreement. At the Closing, net proceeds of $2,350,000 (“Net Proceeds”) were delivered to the General Partner and the Partnership (the Purchase Price less credits totaling $400,000 for prior payments received on July 19, 2013 and August 19, 2013 in connection with stand-still agreements in place until the execution of the PSA (“Stand-Still Payments”). Of the total Purchase Price, the amount of $280,434 of the Purchase Price was allocated to the price paid for the 3,000,000 Common Units and the remaining amount of the Purchase Price, or $2,469,566, was allocated to the value of the 55% Membership Interest of the General Partner, represented by 136,888.89 Units issued to CEGP.

Effective November 26, 2013, CEGP now holds 55% of the issued and outstanding membership interests in the General Partner, and appoints five (5) of the nine (9) Members of the Board of the General Partner. As a result, CEGP controls the General Partner. In addition, CEGP holds 3,000,000 Common Units, which represent 15.7% of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership. Prior to execution of the PSA, Messrs. Imad K. Anbouba and Carter R. Montgomery and the Cushing Fund controlled the General Partner and had controlling authority over the Partnership.

Realization of Assets

During the year ended December 31, 2013, Central improved its overall liquidity. Central’s deficit in working capital, excluding current maturities of long term debt, totaled $1,208,000 at December 31, 2013 compared with $3,163,000 at December 31, 2012, a reduction of $1,955,000. In addition, Central was successful in reducing its obligations owing under the Penske Lease Agreement and extending the interest only payment period under the Hopewell Loan Agreement. During 2013, Central also satisfactorily resolved the TransMontaigne Dispute, the contingencies associated with the Partnership’s late filing tax matters, and paid down and/or obtained payment arrangements with critical accounts payable vendors.

During November 2013, Central completed the CEGP Investment, which provided working capital of $2.75 million to the General Partner and Central. Central also recently amended the note agreement with the General Partner which provides for an increase in the amount of advances from the General Partner from $2.0 million to $4.0 million and extends the commencement date for amortization of the note with the General Partner to the quarter ended March 2017.

In addition to the above, in connection with the New Asphalt Agreement executed in October 2013 and effective January 2014, Regional has taken steps towards expanding its capabilities and services and improving the costs to operate at its Hopewell location. During November 2013, the Storage Tank that had been out of service since April 2012 was placed back into service. Lost revenues during the time the Storage Tank was out of service and the cost to repair the Storage Tank were approximately $475,000 and $313,000, respectively. During February 2014, Regional began providing for the off-loading of asphalt products via rail cars, a capability it did not have previously.

Currently the General Partner’s cash reserves are limited and the remaining available amounts (approximately $0.6 million at February 28, 2014) are intended to be used to fund the Partnership’s ongoing working capital requirements, including necessary funding of working capital for Regional. In connection with the Hopewell Note, Regional is currently required to make interest payments only of $25,000 per month until June 2014 and then equal monthly payments of $56,000 (principal and interest) each month thereafter until March 2016 at which time a balloon payment of $1,844,000 will be due. Regional also is required to make minimum monthly payments under the Penske Lease Agreement of approximately $30,000 until May 2019. Payments under the Hopewell Note and the Penske Lease Agreement could be accelerated in the event of a default. Regional is required to fund upgrades totaling $465,000 during the first nine months of 2014 in connection with the New Asphalt Agreement. The amount of penalties related to the remaining 2012 Tax Return are $142,000 and will be required to be paid if the Partnership’s appeal is unsuccessful. Since the closing of the CEGP Investment, Messrs. Denman, Graves and Weir have agreed to forego receipt of any compensation as a result of concerns over the Partnership’s and the General Partner’s available cash resources. In addition, during December 2013, the Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner agreed to have a portion of his annual salary paid on each anniversary of his employment agreement.

Substantially all of Central’s assets are pledged or committed to be pledged as collateral for the Hopewell Loan, and therefore, Central is unable to obtain additional financing collateralized by those assets without repayment of the Hopewell Loan. In addition, the Partnership has obligations under existing registrations rights agreements. These rights may be a deterrent to any future equity financings.

In view of the matters described in the preceding paragraphs, recoverability of the recorded asset amounts shown in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet assumes (1) the expected increase in revenues from recent contracts entered into by Regional, including the New Asphalt Agreement are realized as currently projected, (2) Regional does not experience any significant disruptions in storage revenues resulting from the timing of termination of storage tank lease agreements and identifying replacement customers and/or disruptions resulting from the performance of maintenance on its facilities, (3) Regional’s hauling revenues remain at current levels, (4) obligations to the Partnership’s or Regional’s creditors are not accelerated, (5) there is adequate funding available to Regional to complete required maintenance to its facilities, (6) Regional’s pending facility upgrades are completed timely and within estimated budgets, (7) the Partnership’s and Regional’s operating expenses remain at current levels, (8) Regional obtains additional working capital to meet its contractual commitments through future advances by the Partnership or a refinancing of the Hopewell Loan, and/or (9) the Partnership is able to receive future distributions from Regional or future advances from the General Partner in amounts necessary to fund working capital until an acquisition transaction is completed by the Partnership.

There is no assurance that the Partnership and/or Regional will have sufficient working capital to cover ongoing cash requirements for the period of time that management believes is necessary to complete an acquisition that will provide additional working capital for the Partnership. If the Partnership does not have sufficient cash reserves, its ability to pursue additional acquisition transactions will be adversely impacted. Furthermore, despite significant effort, the Partnership has thus far been unsuccessful in completing an acquisition transaction. There can be no assurance that the Partnership will be able to complete an accretive acquisition or otherwise find additional sources of working capital. If an acquisition transaction cannot be completed or if additional funds cannot be raised and cash flow is inadequate, the Partnership and/or Regional would be required to seek other alternatives which could include the sale of assets, closure of operations and/or protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

It is Management’s intention to acquire additional assets during 2014 on terms that will enable the Partnership to expand its assets and generate additional cash from operations. Management is also seeking to obtain additional funding through a refinancing of the Hopewell Loan or from a funding transaction completed by the Partnership and/or the General Partner.

Tax Liabilities

The Partnership does not file a consolidated tax return with Regional since this wholly-owned subsidiary is a corporation.

Federal Tax Liabilities

On February 18, 2013, in response to the IRS’s demand for $160,000 of past due income taxes for the tax year December 2011 and remaining portions due in connection with $55,000 of penalties and interest owed by Regional for the tax years ended December 2008 and December 2011, Regional requested from the IRS an installment agreement arrangement and had agreed to make monthly installments of $5,000 until the time that the installment agreement was approved. During June 2013, Regional filed its 2012 federal income tax return and filed forms to request a refund of $160,000 of income taxes as a result of the carryback of losses incurred during the 2012 tax year which effectively eliminated the $160,000 of taxes associated with the December 31, 2011 tax return. During August 2013, the IRS confirmed to Regional that the recently filed 2012 tax return and application for refund were processed and such amounts were offset against the amounts reflected as owing to the IRS described above.

Late Filings and Delivery of Schedules K-1 to Unitholders

On June 14, 2011, the Partnership filed the previously delinquent federal partnership tax returns for the periods from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 and January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. On June 23, 2011, the Partnership also distributed the previously delinquent Schedules K-1 for such taxable periods to its Partners. The Partnership also filed all of the previously delinquent required state partnership tax returns for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 during 2011. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), provides for penalties to be assessed against taxpayers in connection with the late filing of the federal partnership returns and the failure to furnish timely the required Schedules K-1 to investors. Similar penalties are also assessed by certain states for late filing of state partnership returns. The Code and state statutes also provide taxpayer relief in the form of reduction and/or abatement of penalties assessed for late filing of the returns under certain circumstances. The IRS previously notified the Partnership that its calculation of penalties for the delinquent 2008 and 2009 tax returns was approximately $2.5 million.

During September 2011, the Partnership submitted to the IRS its request for a waiver of the penalties for failure to timely file the Partnership’s federal tax returns and associated K-1’s for the tax years 2008 and 2009. The waiver request was made pursuant to Code Section 6698(a)(2) which provides that the penalty will not apply if the taxpayer establishes that its failure to file was due to reasonable cause. The Partnership also requested a waiver based on the IRS’s past administrative policies towards first offenders. On November 19, 2012, the Partnership received a notice from the IRS that its request for a waiver of the penalties for failure to timely file the Partnership’s federal tax returns and associated K-1’s for tax years 2008 and 2009, was denied (“Notice”). The Notice indicated that the information submitted in connection with the request did not establish reasonable cause or show due diligence. On January 11, 2013, the Partnership submitted its appeal of the Notice. On February 8, 2013 and June 10, 2013, the Partnership received notice from the IRS that its request to remove the 2008 and 2009 penalties, respectively, were granted.

During November 2013, the Partnership received a notice from the IRS that indicated the Partnership was liable for penalties (“2012 IRS Penalties”) of approximately $296,000 in connection with the late filing of the 2012 federal partnership tax return (“2012 Tax Return”) and approximately $142,000 in connection with failing to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically. During January 2014, the Partnership submitted an appeal to the IRS to have the 2012 IRS Penalties removed. On February 25, 2014, the Partnership received written notice from the IRS that the appeal of the late filing penalty was approved and the appeal of the failure to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically was denied. The Partnership believes that there existed reasonable cause for the Partnership’s failure to file the 2012 Tax Return electronically and as a result the Partnership intends to appeal the decision to deny. During the year ended December 31, 2013, Central has accrued a reserve of $142,000 in connection with the remaining 2012 IRS Penalties. There can be no assurance that the Partnership’s request for relief from the remaining outstanding 2012 IRS Penalties will be approved by the IRS or that the Partnership will have adequate financial resources to pay the remaining outstanding 2012 IRS Penalties.

State Tax Liabilities

The Partnership previously estimated that the maximum penalty exposure for all state penalties for delinquent 2008 and 2009 tax returns was $940,000.

Since filing the delinquent 2008 and 2009 state partnership tax returns, the Partnership had also (i) submitted a request for abatement of penalties based on reasonable cause and/or (ii) applied for participation into voluntary disclosure and compliance programs for first offenders which provide relief of the penalties to those states which impose significant penalties for late filing of state returns (“Requests”). During 2012, the Partnership received notices from all of the applicable states that the Requests to have the penalties abated and/or waived through participation in voluntary disclosure and compliance programs were granted.

During 2013, The Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Taxation (“VDOT”) notified Regional that approximately $62,000 and $63,000 of income tax, penalties and interest related to the tax periods ended October 2006 and July 2007, respectively, were outstanding (“2006 and 2007 Taxes”) and $42,000 of income tax, penalties and interest related to the tax year ended December 31, 2011 (“2011 Taxes”) were also outstanding. During June 2013, Regional made arrangements with the VDOT to pay the 2011 Taxes due in installments of $6,500 per month until such amounts were fully paid. VDOT had also included approximately $26,000 of sales taxes owed by Regional as part of this payment arrangement. During June 2013, Regional filed its 2012 Virginia state income tax return and filed forms to request a refund of $29,000 of state income taxes as a result of the carryback of losses incurred during the 2012 tax year which effectively eliminated the $29,000 of taxes associated with the 2011 Taxes. The VDOT has confirmed to Regional that the payment amounts owed in connection with the 2011 Taxes were offset by the refund request referred to above and a portion of the associated penalties and interest were removed. During September 2013, Regional received notice from the VDOT that the amounts owed in connection with the 2006 and 2007 Taxes were reduced from $125,000 to $40,000. During January 2014, Regional made a payment arrangement with the VDOT to pay the amounts due in connection with the 2006 and 2007 Taxes through monthly payments of $3,000 beginning February 2014 and continuing until all amounts have been paid. As of December 31, 2013, Regional has accrued $40,000 in connection with the 2006 and 2007 Taxes and $10,000 for estimated Virginia sales and use taxes for the period August 2012 through December 2013.

During May 2013, the Partnership received a notice from the State of California Franchise Tax Board (“CAFTB”) that indicated the Partnership was liable for late filing penalties of approximately $316,000 (“CA Penalties”) in connection with the short tax year return (“Short Tax Year Return”) filed for the period January 1, 2011 through May 26, 2011 as a result of a technical termination that occurred under Section 708(b) of the Code. The Partnership had previously been granted an extension by the IRS to file the federal Short Year Tax Return to the time that the Partnership’s 2011 federal tax return would have been due had a technical termination not occurred. The Partnership filed a request with the CAFTB to have the penalties removed based on the hardship that the IRS had considered in granting the Partnership its extension for filing the federal Short Tax Year Return. During September 2013, the Partnership received confirmation from the CAFTB that the CA Penalties were removed.

Included in selling, general, administrative expenses and other during the year ended December 31, 2013, the Partnership has recorded a net reduction of tax penalties totaling $977,000 which is comprised of $1,119,000 related to reductions of the prior accrual of penalties associated with delinquent 2008 and 2009 partnership federal and state tax returns, partially offset by the additional reserve of $142,000 in connection with the remaining outstanding 2012 IRS Penalties.

The Partnership is required to deliver Schedules K-1 for the 2013 Tax Year to its Unitholders by April 15, 2014 unless the Partnership applies for an automatic extension to September 15, 2014, which it intends to do. Regional is required to file its federal and state income tax returns for the 2013 Tax Year by March 17, 2014 unless the Partnership applies for an automatic extension to September 15, 2014, which it intends to do.

Terminal Operator Status of Regional Facility

In May 2011, Regional was contacted by the IRS regarding whether its Hopewell, Virginia facility would qualify as a “terminal operator” which handles “taxable fuels” and accordingly is required to register through a submission of Form 637 to the IRS. Code Section 4101 provides that a “fuel terminal operator” is a person that (a) operates a terminal or refinery within a foreign trade zone or within a customs bonded storage facility or, (b) holds an inventory position with respect to a taxable fuel in such a terminal. In June 2011, an agent of the IRS toured the Hopewell, Virginia facility and notified the plant manager verbally that he thought the facility did qualify as a “terminal operator.” As a result, even though Regional disagrees with the IRS agent’s analysis, it elected to submit, under protest, to the IRS a Form 637 registration application in July 2011 to provide information about the Hopewell facility. Regional believes that its Form 637 should be rejected by the IRS because (1) the regulations do not apply to Regional’s facility, (2) the items stored do not meet the definition of a “taxable fuel” and (3) there were no taxable fuels being stored or expected to be stored in the foreseeable future that would trigger the registration requirement. Regional had not received a response with respect to its Form 637 submission or arguments that it is not subject to the Requirements.

During December 2012, Regional received notification from IRS’ appeals unit (“Appeals Unit”) that the above matter was under review. A telephonic meeting took place in January 2013 whereby the Appeal Unit determined that Regional did not meet the conditions of a terminal operator which handled taxable fuels and that the matter was dismissed. During March 2013, Regional received formal notification from the IRS that the matter was dismissed with no further action required by Regional. As indicated above, should Regional’s operations in the future include activities which qualify Regional as a terminal operator which handles taxable fuels as defined in the Code, Regional would be subject to additional administrative and filing requirements, although the costs associated with compliance are not expected to be material and Regional would be subject to penalties for the failure to file timely with the IRS any future required reports or forms.

Debt Obligations

RZB Note

In connection with the acquisition of Regional during July 2007, the Partnership funded a portion of the acquisition through a loan of $5,000,000 (“RZB Loan”) from RB International Finance (USA) LLC, formerly known as RZB Finance LLC (“RZB”), dated July 26, 2007 (“Loan Agreement”). The RZB Loan was due on demand and if no demand, with a one-year maturity. In connection with the RZB Loan, Regional granted to RZB a security interest in all of Regional’s assets, including a deed of trust on real property owned by Regional, and the Partnership delivered to RZB a pledge of the outstanding capital stock of Regional.

The RZB Loan was converted to a term loan in June 2009 in connection with the Sixth Amendment, Assumption of Obligations and Release Agreement between Regional, the Partnership and RZB (the “Sixth Amendment”). The Sixth Amendment provided for an increase in the principal amount of the RZB Loan to $4,250,000 as the result of an “incremental loan” of $250,000, established a monthly amortization for the principal amount of the Loan, increased the annual interest rate to 8%, and extended the Maturity Date to April 30, 2012, among other terms and conditions. Regional assumed all obligations of the Partnership under the RZB Loan and related collateral agreements upon execution of the Sixth Amendment. The Maturity Date of the RZB Loan was extended to May 31, 2014 in connection with the Seventh Amendment to the Loan Agreement among the parties dated May 21, 2010. On November 29, 2012, Regional and RZB entered into a “Limited Waiver and Ninth Amendment” (“Ninth Amendment”) to the Loan Agreement. The Ninth Amendment waived the defaults existing at the time of the Ninth Amendment and reduced required monthly amortization payments to $50,000 per month beginning January 31, 2013. The Ninth Amendment also shortened the maturity date of the RZB Loan from May 31, 2014 to March 31, 2013. Regional made the January 31, 2013 monthly amortization payment but failed to make the February 28, 2013 monthly amortization payment. On March 1, 2013, Regional received a “Notice of Default, Demand for Payment and Reservation of Rights” (“March 1, 2013 Demand Notice”) from RZB in connection with the Loan Agreement.

The March 1, 2013 Demand Notice was delivered as the result of Regional’s failure to pay the monthly principal payment in the amount of $50,000 due and payable on February 28, 2013 as prescribed under the Ninth Amendment and the continued default with respect to the non-payment of interest and principal due under the Loan Agreement which had been previously waived pursuant to the Ninth Amendment. The March 1, 2013 Demand Notice declared all Obligations (as defined in the Loan Agreement) immediately due and payable and demanded immediate payment in full of all Obligations, including fees, expenses and other costs of RZB. The March 1, 2013 Demand Notice also (1) contemplated the initiation of foreclosure proceedings in respect of the property owned by Regional and covered by that certain Mortgage, Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of July 26, 2007 and (2) demanded immediate payment of all rents due upon the property pursuant to the terms of the Assignment of Leases and Rents dated July 26, 2006.  On March 20, 2013, all obligations unpaid and outstanding under the Loan Agreement totaling $1,975,000 were paid in full. RZB provided Regional with a payoff letter and released all of the collateral previously held as security. The interest rate related to the RZB Loan for the period January 1, 2013 through March 20, 2013, approximated 9.5%.

Hopewell Loan

On March 20, 2013, Regional entered into a Term Loan and Security Agreement (“Hopewell Loan Agreement”) with Hopewell Investment Partners, LLC (“Hopewell”) pursuant to which Hopewell would loan Regional up to $2,500,000 (“Hopewell Loan”), of which $1,998,000 was advanced on such date and an additional $252,000 and $250,000 was advanced on March 26, 2013 and July 19, 2013, respectively. At the time the Hopewell Loan was obtained, William M. Comegys III, was a member of the Board of Directors of the General Partner, as well as the managing member of Hopewell. As a result of this affiliation, the terms of the Hopewell Loan were reviewed by the Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of the General Partner. The committee determined that the Hopewell Loan was on terms better than could be obtained from a third-party lender.

The principal purpose of the Hopewell Loan was to repay the entire amounts due by Regional to RZB in connection with the Loan Agreement totaling $1,975,000 at the time of payoff, including principal, interest, legal fees and other expenses owed in connection with the Loan Agreement. The remaining amounts provided under the Hopewell Loan to Regional were used for working capital.

In connection with the Hopewell Loan, Regional issued Hopewell a promissory note (“Hopewell Note”) and granted Hopewell a security interest in all of Regional’s assets, including a first lien mortgage on the real property owned by Regional and an assignment of rents and leases and fixtures on the remaining assets of Regional. In connection with the Hopewell Loan, the Partnership delivered to Hopewell a pledge of the outstanding capital stock of Regional and the Partnership entered into an unlimited guaranty for the benefit of Hopewell. In addition, Regional and the Partnership entered into an Environmental Certificate with Hopewell representing as to the environmental condition of the property owned by Regional, agreeing to clean up or remediate any hazardous substances from the property, and agreeing, jointly and severally, to indemnify Hopewell from and against any claims whatsoever related to any hazardous substance on, in or impacting the property of Regional.

The Hopewell Loan matures in three years and carries a fixed annual rate of interest of 12%. Regional is required to make interest payments only of $25,000 per month until June 2014 and then equal monthly payments of $56,000 (principal and interest) each month thereafter until March 2016 at which time a balloon payment of $1,844,000 will be due.

Per the Hopewell Loan Agreement, Regional is required to provide annual audited and certified quarterly financial statements to Hopewell. The failure to provide those financial statements as prescribed is an event of default, and Hopewell may, by written notice to Regional, declare the Hopewell Note immediately due and payable.

Advances from General Partner

During the year ended December 31, 2011 and the nine months ended September 30, 2012, the General Partner made cash advances to the Partnership of $955,000 and $30,000, respectively, for the purpose of funding working capital. On September 14, 2012, a Super-Majority of the Members, as defined in the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the General Partner, dated April 12, 2011, as amended (“Agreement”), approved the issuance and sale by the General Partner of 12,000 additional Membership Interests of the General Partner (“Additional Interests”) at a purchase price of $50.00 per unit, pursuant to Sections 3.2(a) and 6.13(a) of the Agreement (“GP Sale”). The Additional Interests were purchased by all the existing members of the General Partner, except 144 units offered to one existing member (“Unsubscribed Units”), in accordance with their pro rata ownership of the General Partner. In accordance with the Agreement, the General Partner offered the Unsubscribed Units to those members whom participated in the GP Sale for which those members also purchased their pro rata portion of the Unsubscribed Units.

As of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2013, $434,000 and $73,000, respectively, of the net proceeds from the GP Sale, which totaled $507,000 (after the offset of $93,000 of prior advances from Messrs. Anbouba and Montgomery that were applied towards their purchase price amounts due in connection with the GP Sale) were used by the General Partner to fund working capital requirements of Central, including the payment of certain outstanding obligations.

In connection with the Stand-Still Payments and the proceeds received at Closing totaling $2,750,000, the General Partner has advanced approximately $1,392,000 through December 31, 2013 to fund working capital requirements of Central, including the payment of certain outstanding obligations

All funds advanced to the Partnership by the General Partner since November 17, 2010 have been treated as a loan pursuant to the terms of an intercompany demand promissory note effective March 1, 2012, and amended during March 2014. The intercompany demand note provides for advances from time to time by the General Partner to the Partnership of up to $4,000,000. Repayment of such advances, together with accrued and unpaid interest, is to be made in 12 substantially equal quarterly installments starting with the quarter ended March 31, 2017. The note bears interest at the imputed rate of the IRS for medium term notes. The rate at December 1, 2013 was 1.63% per annum and such rate is adjusted monthly by the IRS under IRB 625. At December 31, 2013, the total amount owed to the General Partner by the Partnership, including accrued interest, was $3,000,000.

Intercompany Notes

Regional. In connection with the Regional acquisition, on July 26, 2007 Regional issued to the Partnership a promissory note in the amount of $2,500,000 (“Central Promissory Note”) in connection with the remaining funding needed to complete the acquisition of Regional. Interest on the Central Promissory Note is 10% annually and such interest is payable quarterly. The Central Promissory Note is due on demand. Regional has not made an interest payment on the Central Promissory Note since its inception. Interest is accruing but unpaid. The balance on the note at December 31, 2013 is $4,109,000. The payment of this amount is subordinated to the payment of the Hopewell Note by Regional.

Allocated Expenses Charged to Subsidiary. Regional is charged for direct expenses paid by the Partnership on its behalf, as well as its share of allocable overhead for expenses incurred by the Partnership which are indirectly attributable for Regional related activities. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, Regional recorded allocable expenses of $386,000 and $287,000, respectively.

Other Advances. In addition to the Central Promissory Note, there have been other intercompany net advances made from time to time from the Partnership and/or RVOP to Regional, including the $1.0 million advanced by the Partnership to Regional in connection with the third amendment to the RZB Loan Agreement and allocations of corporate expenses, offset by actual cash payments made by Regional to the Partnership and/or RVOP. These intercompany amounts were historically evidenced by book entries. Effective March 1, 2012, Regional and the Partnership entered into an intercompany demand promissory note incorporating all advances made as of December 31, 2010 and since that date. The note bears interest at the rate of 10% annually from January 1, 2011. At December 31, 2013, the intercompany balance owed by Regional to the Partnership and/or RVOP is approximately $2,068,000, which includes interest. This amount is due to the Partnership and RVOP on demand; however, as is the case with the Central Promissory Note, payment of these amounts is also subordinated to payment of the Hopewell Note by Regional.

Equipment Leases

Effective January 18, 2012, Regional entered into a Vehicle Maintenance Agreement (“Maintenance Agreement”) with Penske Truck Leasing Co., L. P. (“Penske”) for the maintenance of its owned tractor and trailer fleet. The Maintenance Agreement provides for (i) fixed servicing as described in the agreement, which is basically scheduled maintenance, at the fixed monthly rate for tractors and for trailers and (ii) additional requested services, such as tire replacement, mechanical repairs, physical damage repairs, tire replacement, towing and roadside service and the provision of substitute vehicles, at hourly rates and discounts set forth in the agreement. Pricing for the fixed services is subject to upward adjustment for each rise of at least one percent (1%) for the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the United States published by the United States Department of Labor. The term of the agreement is 36 months. Regional is obligated to maintain liability insurance coverage on all vehicles naming Penske as a co-insured and indemnify Penske for any loss it or its representatives may incur in excess of the insurance coverage. Penske has the right to terminate the Maintenance Agreement for any breach by Regional upon 60 days written notice, including failure to pay timely all fees owing Penske, maintenance of Regional’s insurance obligation or any other breach of the terms of the agreement.

On February 17, 2012, Regional entered into a Vehicle Lease Service Agreement with Penske for the outsourcing of 20 new Volvo tractors (“Leased Tractors”) to be acquired by Penske and leased to Regional, and the outsourcing of the maintenance of the Leased Tractors to Penske (“Lease Agreement”). Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, Regional made a $90,000 deposit, the proceeds for which were obtained from the sale of six of Regional’s owned tractors, and will pay a monthly lease fee per tractor and monthly maintenance charge (“Maintenance Charge”) which is based on the actual miles driven by each Leased Tractor during each month. The Maintenance Charge covers all scheduled maintenance, including tires, to keep the Leased Tractors in good repair and operating condition. Any replacement parts and labor for repairs which are not ordinary wear and tear shall be in accordance with Penske fleet pricing, and such costs are subject to upward adjustment on the same terms as set forth in the Maintenance Agreement. Penske is also obligated to provide roadside service resulting from mechanical or tire failure. Penske will obtain all operating permits and licenses with respect to the use of the Leased Tractors by Regional.

The term of the Lease Agreement is for seven years. The Leased Tractors were delivered by Penske during May 2012 and June 2012. Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, Regional (i) may acquire any or all of the Leased Tractors after the first anniversary date of the Lease Agreement based on the non-depreciated value of the tractor and (ii) has the option after the first anniversary date of the Lease Agreement to terminate the lease arrangement with respect to as many as five of the Leased Tractors leased based on a documented downturn in business. On May 31, 2013, Regional notified Penske of its intent to terminate the lease arrangement effective June 15, 2013, for five tractors as provided for in the Lease Agreement as a result of the decline in Regional’s transportation business. As a result of this partial termination, Regional now leases fifteen tractors pursuant to the Lease Agreement. Regional is obligated to maintain liability insurance coverage on all vehicles covered by the Lease Agreement on the same basis as in the Lease Agreement.

The Lease Agreement can be terminated by Penske upon an “event of default” by Regional. An event of default includes (i) failure by Regional to pay timely any lease charges when due or maintain insurance coverage as required by the Lease Agreement, (ii) any representation or warranty of Regional is incorrect in any material respect, (iii) Regional fails to remedy any non-performance under the agreement within five (5) days of written notice from Penske, (iv) Regional or any guarantor of its obligations becomes insolvent, makes a bulk transfer or other transfer of all or substantially all of its assets or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or (v) Regional files for bankruptcy protection or any other proceeding providing for the relief of debtors. Penske may institute legal action to enforce the Lease Agreement or, with or without terminating the Lease Agreement, take immediate possession of the Leased Tractors wherever located or, upon five (5) days written notice to Regional, either require Regional to purchase any or all of the Leased Tractors or make the “alternative payment” described below. In addition, Regional is obligated to pay all lease charges for all such Leased Tractors accrued and owing through the date of the notice from Penske as described above.

Penske’s ability to require Regional to purchase the Leased Tractor fleet or make the “alternative payment” would place a substantial financial burden on Regional.

The Lease Agreement can also be terminated by either party upon 120 days written notice to the other party as to any Leased Tractor subject to the agreement on any annual anniversary of such tractor’s in-service date. Upon termination of the Lease Agreement by either party, Regional shall, at Penske’s option, either acquire the Leased Tractor that is the subject of the notice at the non-depreciated value of such tractor, or pay Penske the “alternative payment.” The “alternative payment” is defined in the Lease Agreement as the difference, if any, between the fair market value of the Leased Tractor and such tractor’s “depreciated Schedule A value” ($738 per month commencing on the in-service date of such tractor). If the Lease Agreement is terminated by Penske and Regional is not then in default under any term of the Lease Agreement, Regional is not obligated to either acquire the Leased Tractor that is the subject of the termination or pay Penske the “alternative payment” as described above.

Private Placements

On November 26, 2013, the Partnership sold 3,000,000 Common Units to CEGP for $280,434 in cash pursuant to the terms of the PSA dated November 26, 2013, by and among the Partnership, the General Partner and CEGP. In addition, under the terms of the PSA, the Partnership issued Performance Warrants to JLD and Mr. G. Thomas Graves III, for consideration of $500.00 each. As a result, CEGP holds 15.7% of the issued and outstanding Common Units of the Partnership.

Reimbursement Agreements

Effective December 31, 2013, in connection with the CEGP Investment and the resulting change in control of the General Partner, the Partnership moved its principal executive offices to a Dallas location that is leased from Katy Resources LLC (“Katy”), an entity controlled by C Thomas Graves III. As a result, the Reimbursement Agreement with Airnow Compression Systems, LTD was terminated, and the Partnership entered into a new reimbursement agreement with Katy on a month to month basis for reimbursement of allocable “overhead costs” and can be terminated by either party on 30 day’s advance written notice. The Partnership also has an agreement with Rover Technologies LLC, a limited liability company affiliated with Ian Bothwell, the General Partner’s Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, for office space located in Manhattan Beach, California. Mr. Bothwell is a resident of California and lives in Manhattan Beach. Since June 2012, Regional has been directly charged for its allocated portion of Rover Technologies LLC’s expenses. In connection with the CEGP Investment, the Partnership reimbursed Rover Technologies LLC for the outstanding unpaid overhead costs as of the date of the CEGP Investment.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Partnership and Regional do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, "Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs." This ASU is a result of joint efforts by the FASB and IASB to develop a single, converged framework on how to measure fair value and what disclosures to provide about fair value measurements. This ASU is largely consistent with existing fair value measurement principles of U.S. GAAP, however, it expands existing disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. The ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and applied prospectively. Central adopted this ASU beginning with the reporting period ended March 31, 2012, as required. Adoption of this guidance resulted in expanded disclosures on fair value measurements, but did not have an impact on the Central's measurements of fair value.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-12, “Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income”. This guidance is the culmination of the board's redeliberation on reporting reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income. The standard requires that companies present information about reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income in their interim and annual financial statements in a single note or on the face of the financial statements. This ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company did not have any transactions requiring application of this ASU for any reporting period beginning with the quarter ended March 31, 2013 through the year ended December 31, 2013.

In July 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2013-11, "Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists." The ASU was issued to eliminate diversity in practice in the presentation of unrecognized tax benefits when a net operating loss ("NOL") carryforward, a similar tax loss or a tax credit carryforward exists. Under the new guidance, an entity should present an unrecognized tax benefit as a reduction of the deferred tax asset for an NOL or similar tax loss or tax credit carryforward rather than as a liability when the uncertain tax position would reduce the NOL or other carryforward under the tax law. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2013, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in this ASU should be applied prospectively to all unrecognized tax benefits that exist at the effective date, but retrospective application is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting the provisions of ASU 2013-11, but does not expect the standard to have a significant impact on its financial statements.

Critical Accounting Policies

The audited consolidated financial statements of the Partnership reflect the selection and application of accounting policies which require management to make significant estimates and judgments. Please see “Note B – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplemental Data.” We believe that the following reflect the more critical accounting policies that affect its financial position and results of operations.

Impairment of long-lived assets — The determination of whether impairment has occurred is based on an estimate of undiscounted cash flows attributable to assets in future periods. If impairment has occurred, the amount of the impairment loss recognized will be determined by estimating the fair value of the assets and recording a loss if the fair value is less than the carrying value. Assessments of impairment are subject to management’s judgments and based on estimates that management is required to make.

Goodwill — Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair value of identifiable net assets associated with acquisition transactions. Under ASC 350, goodwill is not amortized. The Company is required to make at least an annual test of the fair value of the intangible to determine if impairment has occurred. The Company performs an annual impairment test for goodwill in the fourth quarter of each calendar year. No impairment charges were incurred during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013.

Depreciation and amortization expenses — Property, plant and equipment are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization rates are based on management’s estimate of the future utilization and useful lives of the assets. Should the nature of the Partnership’s business change our future utilization and useful lives of depreciable and amortizable assets may also change. This could result in increases or decreases in depreciation and amortization expense compared with historical amounts.

Unit-based compensation — The Partnership utilizes unit-based awards as a form of compensation for employees, officers, manager and consultants of the General Partner. During the quarter ended March 31, 2006, the Partnership adopted the provisions of ASC 718 for unit-based payments to employees using the modified prospective application transition method. Under this method, previously reported amounts should not be restated to reflect the provisions of ASC 718. ASC 718 requires measurement of all employee unit-based payment awards using a fair-value method and recording of such expense in the consolidated financial statements over the requisite service period. The fair value concepts have not changed significantly in ASC 718; however, in adopting this standard, companies must choose among alternative valuation models and amortization assumptions. After assessing alternative valuation models and amortization assumptions, Central will continue using both the Black-Scholes valuation model and straight-line amortization of compensation expense over the requisite service period for each separately vesting portion of the grant. Central will reconsider use of this model if additional information becomes available in the future that indicates another model would be more appropriate, or if grants issued in future periods have characteristics that cannot be reasonably estimated using this model. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Partnership granted 200,000 Common Units to an executive officer of the General Partner which was fully vested upon issuance. The Partnership recorded unit-based compensation of $16,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013 in connection with this issuance under the fair-value provisions of ASC 718. In addition, on December 19, 2013, the Board of Directors of the General Partner authorized a grant of an aggregate of 187,500 Common Units to certain outside directors of the General Partner which will be effective upon the execution of unit grant agreements with each of the recipients. As of the filing of this Annual Report, the unit grant agreements had not been finalized or executed by the recipients. Please see “Item 11 – Executive Compensation – Equity Compensation” for additional information regarding these Unit grants. The Partnership did not record any unit-based payment expense for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Allowance for doubtful accounts — The carrying value of trade accounts receivable is based on estimated fair value. The determination of fair value is subject to management’s judgments and is based on estimates that management is required to make. Those estimates are made based on the creditworthiness of customers and payment history. The Partnership has made no provisions for doubtful accounts since its inception.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Not applicable.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of Central Energy GP LLC,

General Partner of Central Energy Partners LP and Unitholders Of Central Energy Partners LP

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Central Energy Partners LP and Subsidiaries (“Central”) as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, and the related consolidated statement of operations, partners’ capital (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of Central’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. Central is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Central’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Central as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013 and its consolidated statements of operations, partners’ capital and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Central will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note M to the consolidated financial statements, Central has incurred recurring losses and has a deficit in working capital that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.  

/s/ MONTGOMERY COSCIA GREILICH, LLP

MONTGOMERY COSCIA GREILICH, LLP

Plano, Texas

March 31, 2014

Central Energy Partners LP and Subsidiaries

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

December 31,

ASSETS

LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL (DEFICIT)