IBJNews

  • Home

Calumet see smaller loss in second quarter

 IBJ Staff
August 4, 2010
Keywords
Calumet Specialty Products, Financial Results, Manufacturers, Manufacturing & Technology, Public Companies
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Calumet Specialty Products Partners LP suffered a smaller loss in the second quarter than it did a year ago and beat the expectations of Wall Street analysts, the company announced Wednesday morning.

The Indianapolis-based owner of oil refineries lost $907,000, or 3 cents per share, in the three months ended June 30. In the same quarter last year, the company lost $26 million, or 79 cents per share.

Calumet experienced investment losses of $13.3 million in the quarter, including on hedging contracts. Excluding those results, the company would have earned more than the 30 cent per-share profit expected by three analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters.

Sales for the quarter surged 16 percent, to $514.7 million, but fell well below analyst predictions of $533.8 million.

"We are pleased with our results for the second quarter considering our Shreveport (Louisiana) refinery was down for an extended turnaround during the entire month of April 2010," said Bill Grube, Calumet's CEO, in a prepared statement. "We continue to focus on increased run rates to meet higher demand for our specialty products and to take advantage of higher fuel products margins during the summer months."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT