Martin Midstream (MMLP) Risk Analysis

The payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness reduces the cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, our credit facility and the indenture governing our secured notes severely restrict our ability to make distributions until our total leverage ratio (as defined in the applicable debt instruments) is less than 3.75 to 1.00 (under the indenture) and 4.50 to 1.00 (under our credit facility), pro forma first lien leverage is less than 1.00 to 1.00, and our pro forma liquidity is greater than or equal to 35% of the commitments under our credit facility. After deleveraging, the covenants in our debt instruments will continue to restrict our ability to make distributions, including a prohibition in our credit facility from making cash distributions during a default or an event of default under our credit facility or if the payment of a distribution would cause a default or an event of default thereunder. Our leverage and various limitations in our debt instruments may reduce our ability to incur additional debt, engage in certain transactions, and capitalize on acquisition or other business opportunities that could increase cash flows and distributions to our unitholders.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in us depends largely on our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested a ruling from the IRS on this matter. Despite the fact that we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. In order for us to be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, more than 90% of our gross income each year must be "qualifying income" under Section 7704 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). "Qualifying income" includes income and gains derived from the exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation, or marketing of minerals or natural resources, including crude oil, natural gas and products thereof. Other types of qualifying income include interest (other than from a financial business), dividends, gains from the sale of real property and gains from the sale or other disposition of capital assets held for the production of income that otherwise constitutes qualifying income. Although we intend to meet this gross income requirement, we may not find it possible, regardless of our efforts, to meet this gross income requirement or may inadvertently fail to meet this gross income requirement. If we do not meet this gross income requirement for any taxable year and the IRS does not determine that such failure was inadvertent, we would be treated as a corporation for such taxable year and each taxable year thereafter. If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would owe federal income tax on our income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 21%, and would likely owe state income tax at varying rates. Distributions would generally be taxed again to unitholders as corporate distributions and no income, gains, losses, or deductions would flow through to unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as an entity, cash available for distribution to unitholders would be reduced. Treatment of us as a corporation would result in a reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to unitholders and therefore would likely result in a reduction in the value of the common units.

The regulatory environment surrounding data privacy and protection is constantly evolving and can be subject to significant change. New data protection laws pose increasingly complex compliance challenges and potentially elevate our costs. Complying with varying jurisdictional requirements could increase the costs and complexity of compliance, and violations of applicable data protection laws can result in significant penalties. Any failure, or perceived failure, by us to adequately address privacy and cybersecurity concerns or comply with applicable data protection laws could result in proceedings or actions against us by governmental entities or others, subject us to significant fines, penalties, judgments, and negative publicity, require us to change our business practices, increase the costs and complexity of compliance, or adversely affect our business. As noted above, we are also subject to the possibility of cyberattacks, which themselves may result in a violation of these laws.

Our terminalling and storage, transportation and NGL services depend on crude oil and natural gas wells from which production will naturally decline over time, which means that the cash flows associated with these sources of natural gas and crude oil will likely also decline over time. To maintain or increase our levels of operation, we must continually obtain new natural gas, NGL and crude oil supplies. A material decrease in natural gas or crude oil production from producing areas on which we rely, as a result of depressed commodity prices or otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume of petroleum products for which we provide terminalling, storage and transportation service or NGL products delivered to our facilities. Our ability to obtain additional sources of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil depends, in part, on the level of successful drilling and production activity near our terminals and other areas from which we source NGL and crude oil supplies. We have no control over the level of such activity in the areas of our operations, the amount of reserves associated with the wells or the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, we have no control over producers or their drilling, completion or production decisions, which are affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices, demand for hydrocarbons, the level of reserves, geological considerations, governmental regulations, the availability of drilling rigs, other production and development costs and the availability and cost of capital. Fluctuations in energy prices can greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. Drilling and production activity generally decreases as crude oil and natural gas prices decrease. Prices of crude oil and natural gas have been historically volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue. Consequently, even if new natural gas or crude oil reserves are discovered in areas served by our assets, producers may choose not to develop those reserves. For example, current low prices for natural gas combined with relatively high levels of natural gas in storage could result in curtailment or shut-in of natural gas production similar to the production shut-ins we experienced in 2020 due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, in response to depressed commodity prices, many operators have announced substantial reductions in their estimated capital expenditures, rig count and completion crews. Reductions in exploration and production activity, competitor actions or shut-ins by producers in the areas in which we operate may prevent us from obtaining supplies of natural gas or crude oil to replace the natural decline in volumes from existing wells, which could result in reduced volumes through our facilities and reduced utilization of our assets.

Increasing energy prices could adversely affect our results of operations. Diesel fuel, natural gas, chemicals and other supplies are recorded in operating expenses. An increase in price of these products would increase our operating expenses, which could adversely affect our results of operations, including net income and cash flows. We cannot assure unitholders that we will be able to pass along increased operating expenses to our customers.

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

The level of offshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activity historically has been volatile and is likely to continue to be so in the future. The level of activity is subject to large fluctuations in response to relatively minor changes in a variety of factors that are beyond our control, including: - prevailing oil and natural gas prices and expectations about future prices and price volatility;- the ability of exploration and production companies to drill in other basins that have more attractive rates of return;- the cost of offshore exploration for and production and transportation of oil and natural gas;- worldwide demand for oil and natural gas - consolidation of oil and gas and oil service companies operating offshore;- availability and rate of discovery of new oil and natural gas reserves in offshore areas;- local and international political and economic conditions and policies;- technological advances affecting energy production and consumption;- weather conditions;- climate change;- environmental regulation; and - the ability of oil and gas companies to generate or otherwise obtain funds for exploration and production As a result of the decline in commodity prices over the last several years, offshore development activity in the Gulf of Mexico declined substantially, diminishing demand for our terminalling and storage services. We can offer no assurance whether or when those activity levels will improve. Even if such activity levels improve, we expect such activity to continue to be volatile and affect demand for our terminalling and storage services.

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

The threat of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the U.S. and in foreign countries. Numerous proposals have been made and could continue to be made at the international, national, regional, and state levels to monitor and limit existing emissions of GHGs as well as to restrict or eliminate such future emissions. As a result, our operations, as well as the operations of our customers, are subject to a series of regulatory, political, financial, and litigation risks associated with the processing, terminalling, storage, and transportation of fossil fuels, petroleum products, and emission of GHGs. In the U.S., no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, the EPA has adopted rules that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the U.S., and implement New Source Performance Standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector, including midstream sources. In March 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency published strict new methane emission regulations for certain oil and gas facilities and the federal tax legislation enacted in 2022 established a charge on methane emissions above certain limits from the same facilities, which rule was finalized in November 2024. In January 2025, however, President Trump signed a series of executive orders that call upon the EPA to submit a report on the continuing applicability of its endangerment finding for GHGs under the Clean Air Act, direct federal executive departments and agencies to initiate a regulatory freeze for certain rules that have not taken effect, pending review by the newly appointed agency head, direct federal agencies to identify and exercise emergency authorities to facilitate conventional energy production, transportation, and refining, and mandate a review of existing regulations that may burden domestic energy development. Despite potential changes with respect to the federal regulation of GHGs, various states and groups of states have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations, or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and various other measures that would restrict emissions of GHGs from different industrial sectors. At the international level, pursuant to the Paris Agreement, over 190 countries have committed to limiting their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. In November 2020, the U.S. formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement. However, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of rejoining the Paris Agreement, the former President announced that the U.S. would commit to a 50 to 52 percent reduction from 2005 levels of GHG emissions by 2030 and set the goal of reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. In December 2023, the United Nations Climate Change Conference ("COP 28") held in Dubai issued its first global stocktake agreement, which called on parties, including the United States, to contribute to the transitioning away from fossil fuels, reduction of methane emissions, and increase in renewable energy capacity to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. On January 20, 2025, however, President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, marking a significant shift in federal climate policy. Pursuant to the terms of the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal will take effect on January 27, 2026. State and local GHG initiatives may continue despite the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. State, local, and international regulatory measures continue to have the potential to increase our operating costs through direct regulation of GHG emissions resulting from our operations and could also indirectly adversely affect our operations by decreasing demand for our services and products. Our business could be impacted by initiatives to address greenhouse gases and climate change and incentives to conserve energy or use alternative energy sources. For example, the federal tax legislation enacted in 2022, includes incentives to increase renewable energy, such as wind and solar electric generation, and encourages consumers to use these alternative energy sources. Disbursements under the IRA, however, have been paused by the Trump Administration. Such federal tax legislation and similar state or federal initiatives to incentivize a shift away from fossil fuels could reduce demand for hydrocarbons, thereby reducing demand for our products and services and negatively impacting our business. Additionally, there are increasing potential financial risks for fossil fuel energy companies as environmental activists concerned about the potential effects of climate change are focusing intensive lobbying efforts on institutional lenders, including financial institutions and institutional investors, not to provide funding to such companies. Institutional lenders may, of their own accord, elect not to provide funding to fossil fuel energy companies based on climate change concerns. Limitation of investments in fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay, or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities of our customers, and, consequently, reduce their demand for our services. Separately, increased attention to climate change risks has increased the possibility of claims brought by public and private entities against energy companies in connection with their GHG emissions and alleged damages resulting from the alleged physical impacts of climate change, such as flooding, coastal erosion, and severe weather events. While courts have generally declined to assign direct liability for climate change to large sources of GHG emissions, new claims for damages and increased government scrutiny, especially from state and local governments, will likely continue. While we are not currently party to any such private litigation, we could be named in future actions making similar claims of liability. Moreover, societal pressures or political or other factors may shape the success of such claims, without regard to the company's causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors. The adoption and implementation of new or more stringent international, federal, or state legislation, regulations, or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from oil and natural gas producers or their midstream services providers such as us could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for or erode value for, the petroleum products and by-products that we process, store and transport. Additionally, political, financial, and litigation risks may result in our customers restricting or cancelling oil and natural gas production activities, which could result in reduced demand for our services. We may also suffer claims for infrastructure damages allegedly caused by climactic changes or be unable to continue to operate in an economic manner. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.