RTK Rentech, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Note 1 — Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Rentech, Inc. (“Rentech”) and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and in compliance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X, neither of which requires all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. Accordingly, the accompanying financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, the unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s financial position as of March 31, 2014, and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Rentech, its wholly owned subsidiaries and all subsidiaries in which Rentech directly or indirectly owns a controlling financial interest. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2014 or any other reporting period. The information included in this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 17, 2014 (the “Annual Report”).

The Company, through its indirect majority-owned subsidiary, Rentech Nitrogen Partners, L.P. (“RNP”), owns and operates two fertilizer facilities: the Company’s East Dubuque Facility and the Company’s Pasadena Facility, referred to collectively as the “Fertilizer Facilities.” Our East Dubuque Facility is located in East Dubuque, Illinois and owned by Rentech Nitrogen, LLC (“RNLLC”). Our Pasadena Facility is located in Pasadena, Texas and owned by Rentech Nitrogen Pasadena, LLC (“RNPLLC”). The noncontrolling interests reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets are affected by the net income of, and distributions from, RNP.

On May 1, 2013, the Company acquired all of the capital stock of Fulghum Fibres, Inc. (“Fulghum”). Upon the closing of this transaction (the “Fulghum Acquisition”), Fulghum became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Fulghum provides high-quality wood chipping and wood yard operations services, and produces and sells wood chips to the pulp, paper and packaging industry. Fulghum now operates 32 wood chipping mills, of which 26 are located in the United States, five are located in Chile and one is located in Uruguay. Noncontrolling interests represent the non-acquired ownership interests in the subsidiaries located in Chile and Uruguay. Fulghum currently owns approximately 88% and 87% of the equity interests in the subsidiaries located in Chile and Uruguay, respectively. The final purchase price of the Fulghum Acquisition and the allocation thereof will not be known until a review of various tax issues is completed. The Company will finalize the accounting for the Fulghum Acquisition in the second quarter of 2014.

The Company is developing two facilities in Eastern Canada to produce and sell wood pellets for use as renewable fuel for the generation of electricity. In 2013, the Company acquired an idled oriented strand board processing mill in Wawa, Ontario, Canada. The Company is in the process of converting the mill to a wood pellet facility with the capacity to produce approximately 450,000 metric tons of wood pellets annually (the “Wawa Project”). Also, in 2013, the Company acquired a former particle board processing mill in Atikokan, Ontario, Canada. The Company is in the process of converting the mill to a wood pellet facility with the capacity to produce approximately 90,000 metric tons of wood pellets annually (the “Atikokan Project”). See Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies for major contracts and commitments for this business segment.

In the first quarter of 2014, the Company decided to exit the energy technologies business as a direct result of the high projected cost to develop the technologies and deploy them at commercial scale and lower projected returns on such investments. The lower projected returns were due to, among other things, the decrease in energy prices in the United States as a result of the proliferation of hydraulic fracturing and other factors, as well as the failure of, and reductions in, government incentives and regulations intended to support the development of alternative energy, particularly within the United States. See Note 4 — Discontinued Operations.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Fair values of cash, receivables, deposits, other current assets, accounts payable, accrued liabilities and other current liabilities were assumed to approximate carrying value since they are short term and can be settled on demand. These items meet the definition of Level 1 financial instruments as defined in Note 5 — Fair Value.

9

Table of Contents

Accounting guidance establishes accounting and reporting requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. This guidance requires recognition of all derivative instruments as assets or liabilities on the Company’s balance sheet and measurement of those instruments at fair value. The accounting treatment of changes in fair value is dependent upon whether or not a derivative instrument is designated as a hedge and if so, the type of hedge. The Company currently does not designate any of its derivatives as hedges for financial accounting purposes. Gains and losses on derivative instruments not designated as hedges are currently included in earnings and reported under cash from operating activities.

Goodwill

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired in a business acquisition. The Company tests goodwill for impairment annually, or more often if an event or circumstance indicates that an impairment may have occurred. The analysis of the potential impairment of goodwill is a two step process. Step one of the impairment test consists of comparing the fair value of the reporting unit with the aggregate carrying value, including goodwill. If the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value, step two must be performed to determine the amount, if any, of the goodwill impairment.

There are significant assumptions involved in performing a goodwill impairment test, which include discount rates, terminal growth rates, future prices of end products and raw materials, terminal values and production volumes. The various valuation methods used (income approach, replacement cost and market approach) are also weighted in determining fair market value. Changes to any of these assumptions could increase or decrease the fair value of the Pasadena and Fulghum reporting units. The Company does not believe any impairment is required at March 31, 2014.

The Company has evaluated events occurring between March 31, 2014 and the date of these financial statements to ensure that such events are properly reflected in these statements.

Note 2 — Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued guidance as to when an unrecognized tax benefit should be classified as a reduction of a deferred tax asset or when it should be classified as a liability in the consolidated balance sheet. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2013, and thus became effective for the Company’s interim period beginning on January 1, 2014. The adoption of this guidance did not have any impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or disclosures.

Note 3 — Fulghum Acquisition

On May 1, 2013, the Company acquired all of the capital stock of Fulghum. The preliminary purchase price consisted of approximately $64.2 million of cash, including approximately $3.3 million used to retire certain debt of Fulghum at closing. The amount of the purchase price was subject to certain potential post-closing adjustments set forth in the stock purchase agreement.

This business combination has been accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting, which requires, among other things, that assets acquired and liabilities assumed be recognized at their fair values as of the acquisition date.

The Company’s preliminary purchase price allocation is as follows (amounts in thousands):

10

Table of Contents

Long-term deferred tax liabilities and other tax liabilities result from identifiable tangible and intangible assets fair value adjustments. These adjustments create excess book basis over the tax basis which is multiplied by the statutory tax rate for the jurisdiction in which the deferred taxes exist. As part of purchase accounting for Fulghum, we recorded additional deferred tax liabilities of approximately $15.8 million attributable to identifiable tangible and intangible assets.

The final purchase price and the allocation thereof will not be known until a review of various tax issues is completed.

Pro Forma Information

The unaudited pro forma information has been prepared as if the Fulghum Acquisition had taken place on January 1, 2013. The unaudited pro forma information is not necessarily indicative of the results that the Company would have achieved had the transactions actually taken place on January 1, 2013, and the unaudited pro forma information does not purport to be indicative of future financial operating results.

Note 4 — Discontinued Operations

On March 5, 2014, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement with Sunshine Kaidi New Energy Group Co., Ltd. (the “Kaidi Agreement”) to sell its alternative energy technologies and certain pieces of equipment at its decommissioned Product Demonstration Unit (the “PDU”) located in Commerce City, Colorado. The transaction would provide the Company at closing with an initial cash purchase price for its technology and equipment of $15.3 million, and the possibility of a success payment of up to $16.2 million. At December 31, 2013, the Company had classified the PDU as property held for sale on its consolidated balance sheet. As a result of the Kaidi Agreement, the Company has reclassified its balance sheets and statements of operations for all periods presented in this report to reflect the energy technologies segment as a discontinued operation. In the statements of cash flows, the cash flows of discontinued operations are not separately classified or aggregated, and are reported in the respective categories with those of continuing operations.

All discussions and amounts in the consolidated financial statements and related notes, except for cash flows, for all periods presented relate to continuing operations only, unless otherwise noted.

The following table summarizes the components of assets and liabilities of discontinued operations.

11

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the results of discontinued operations.

Note 5 — Fair Value

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date in a principal or most advantageous market. Fair value is a market-based measurement that is determined based on inputs, which refer broadly to assumptions that market participants use in pricing assets or liabilities. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated or generally unobservable inputs. The Company makes certain assumptions it believes that market participants would use in pricing assets or liabilities, including assumptions about risk, and the risks inherent in the inputs to valuation techniques. Credit risk of the Company and its counterparties is incorporated in the valuation of assets and liabilities. The Company believes it uses valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable market-based inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

A fair value hierarchy has been established that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value in three broad levels. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). In some cases, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall in different levels of the fair value hierarchy. All assets and liabilities are required to be classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Assessing the significance of a particular input may require judgment considering factors specific to the asset or liability, and may affect the valuation of the asset or liability and its placement within the fair value hierarchy. The Company classifies fair value balances based on the fair value hierarchy, defined as follows:

The following table presents the financial instruments that require fair value disclosure as of March 31, 2014.

The following table presents the financial instruments that require fair value disclosure as of December 31, 2013.

12

Table of Contents

RNP Notes

The $320.0 million of 6.5% second lien senior secured notes due 2021 (the “RNP Notes”) are deemed to be Level 1 financial instruments because there was an active market for such debt. The fair value of such debt had been determined based on market prices.

Fulghum Debt

Fulghum debt is deemed to be Level 2 financial instruments because the measurement is based on observable market data. The fair value was determined by management using an independent, third party valuation company.

RNHI Revolving Loan

The RNHI Revolving Loan, as defined in Note 8 — Debt, is deemed to be a Level 2 financial instrument because the measurement is based on observable market data. Since the RNHI Revolving Loan’s interest rate is a floating rate and the Company’s credit has not changed, the carrying value approximates the fair value.

QS Construction Facility

The Company’s financing obligation with Quebec Stevedoring Company Limited (the “QS Construction Facility”) is deemed to be a Level 2 financial instrument because the measurement is based on observable market data. To determine the fair value, the Company reviewed the current market interest rates of similar borrowing arrangements. It was concluded that the carrying value of the QS Construction Facility approximates the fair value of the obligation at March 31, 2014 because of the floating nature of the interest rate and the fact that the Company’s credit worthiness has not changed since the QS Construction Facility was established.

Earn-out Consideration

At March 31, 2014, the earn-out consideration represents approximately $1.5 million of potential earn-out consideration relating to the Atikokan Project. The earn-out consideration related to the Atikokan Project is deemed to be a Level 3 financial instrument because the measurement is based on unobservable inputs. The fair value of earn-out consideration was determined based on the Company’s analysis of various scenarios involving the achievement of certain levels of EBITDA, as defined in the asset purchase agreement related to the Atikokan Project, over a ten year period. The scenarios, which included a weighted probability factor, involved assumptions relating to product profitability and production. The earn-out consideration will be measured at each reporting date with changes in its fair value recognized in the consolidated statements of operations. The Company provided a loan to the sellers of approximately $0.9 million, which will be repayable from any earn-out consideration.

A reconciliation of the change in the carrying value of the earn-out consideration is as follows (in thousands):

The levels within the fair value hierarchy at which the Company’s financial instruments have been evaluated have not changed for any of the Company’s financial instruments during the three months ended March 31, 2014.

13

Table of Contents

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, RNP wrote-down the value of the Pasadena Facility’s sulfur and sulfuric acid inventory by approximately $0.5 million to market value. This expense is reflected in cost of goods sold.

Construction in progress consisted of the following:

The construction in progress balance at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 includes approximately $1.5 million and $0.8 million of capitalized interest costs, respectively.

Note 8 — Debt

RNP Credit Agreement

On April 12, 2013, RNP and Finance Corporation (collectively the “Borrowers”) entered into a credit agreement (the “RNP Credit Agreement”). The RNP Credit Agreement consists of a $35.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility (the “RNP Credit Facility”). The Borrowers may use the RNP Credit Agreement to fund their working capital needs, to fund capital expenditures, to issue letters of credit and for other general partnership purposes. The RNP Credit Agreement also includes a $10.0 million letter of credit sublimit. The commitment under the RNP Credit Facility may be increased by up to $15.0 million upon the Borrowers’ request at the discretion of the lenders and subject to certain customary requirements.

14

Table of Contents

On March 7, 2014 the Borrowers entered into the First Amendment to the RNP Credit Agreement (the “First RNP Amendment”). The First RNP Amendment replaces in certain circumstances the financial test that the Borrowers must satisfy for any borrowing from the Secured Leverage Ratio to a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (each as defined in the RNP Credit Agreement) for the period from the date of the amendment until immediately prior to the time RNP reports its fiscal year 2014 annual results (the “FCCR End Date”). The Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio that the Borrowers have to meet from the date of the First RNP Amendment through the date immediately prior to the time RNP reports its 2014 first quarter results is 2.00 to 1.00, and thereafter through the FCCR End Date is 2.25 to 1.00. For the twelve months ended March 31, 2014, RNP’s Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio was 2.84 to 1.00.

The First RNP Amendment also modifies for a specified period the financial test applicable to the announcement or payment of a distribution. In the event that RNP has no amounts outstanding under the RNP Credit Agreement on the date of the announcement or payment of an RNP distribution, the minimum Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio that it has to meet in order to pay distributions in the period from the date of the First RNP Amendment through the date immediately prior to reporting RNP’s 2014 first quarter results is 2.00 to 1.00, and thereafter through the FCCR End Date is 2.25 to 1.00. If there is any amount outstanding under the RNP Credit Agreement on the date of the announcement or payment of a distribution from the period beginning with the date of the First RNP Amendment through the FCCR End Date, RNP must have a Secured Leverage Ratio not in excess of 3.75 to 1.00. Following the FCCR End Date, to announce or pay a distribution RNP must have a Secured Leverage Ratio not in excess of 3.75 to 1.00. In addition, before RNP can make distributions, RNP must have at least $8.75 million available to be drawn under the RNP Credit Agreement on a pro forma basis.

As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, there were no outstanding borrowings under the RNP Credit Agreement, and RNP was in compliance with all covenants under the Credit Agreement.

RNHI Revolving Loan

On September 23, 2013, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc. (“RNHI”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Rentech, obtained a $100.0 million revolving loan facility (“RNHI Revolving Loan”) by entering into a credit agreement (the “RNHI Credit Agreement”) among RNHI, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch, as administrative agent and each other lender from time to time party thereto. On September 24, 2013, the Company borrowed $50.0 million under the facility.

See Note 13 — Subsequent Events regarding the incurrence of additional debt and the repayment in full and termination of the RNHI Credit Agreement.

BOM Credit Agreement

On November 25, 2013, the Company entered into a credit agreement with Bank of Montreal (the “BOM Credit Agreement”). The BOM Credit Agreement consists of a $3.0 million revolving credit facility, which can be utilized as letters of credit.

Borrowings bear a letter of credit fee of 3.75% per annum on the daily average face amount of the letters of credits outstanding during the preceding calendar quarter. The Company also is required to pay a commitment fee on the average daily undrawn portion of the credit facility at a rate equal to 0.75% per annum. This commitment fee is payable quarterly in arrears on the last day of each calendar quarter and on the termination date. The BOM Credit Agreement will terminate on November 25, 2015. At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, letters of credit totaling $1.1 million had been issued. See Note 13 — Subsequent Events regarding the increase in amount available under the revolving credit facility.

15

Table of Contents

Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies

Natural Gas Forward Purchase Contracts

The Company’s policy and practice are to enter into fixed-price forward purchase contracts for natural gas in conjunction with contracted nitrogen fertilizer product sales in order to substantially fix gross margin on those product sales contracts. The Company may also enter into a limited amount of additional fixed-price forward purchase contracts for natural gas in order to minimize monthly and seasonal gas price volatility. The Company occasionally enters into index-price contracts for the purchase of natural gas. The Company has entered into multiple natural gas forward purchase contracts for various delivery dates through April 30, 2014. Commitments for natural gas purchases consist of the following:

Subsequent to March 31, 2014 through April 30, 2014, the Company entered into additional fixed-quantity forward purchase contracts at fixed and indexed prices for various delivery dates through May 31, 2014. The total MMBtus associated with these additional forward purchase contracts are approximately 0.7 million and the total amount of the purchase commitments are approximately $3.1 million, resulting in a weighted average rate per MMBtu of approximately $4.74 in these new commitments. The Company is required to make additional prepayments under these forward purchase contracts in the event that market prices fall below the purchase prices in the contracts.

Contractual Obligations

Pasadena

On April 17, 2013, the Company entered into an engineering, procurement and construction contract (the “EPC Contract”) with Abeinsa Abener Teyma General Partnership (“Abeinsa”). The EPC Contract provides for Abeinsa to be the contractor on the Company’s power generation project at the Pasadena Facility. The value of the contract is approximately $25.0 million and the project is expected to be completed by late 2014. As of March 31, 2014, the Company has paid approximately $15.7 million and accrued an additional $0.8 million under the EPC contract.

Wood Pellets

On April 30, 2013, the Company entered into a ten-year off-take contract (the “Drax Contract”) with Drax Power Limited (“Drax”). Under the Drax Contract, the Company is required to sell to Drax the first 400,000 metric tonnes of wood pellets per year produced from the Wawa Project, with the first delivery under the contract scheduled for the end of year 2014. In the event that the Company does not deliver wood pellets as required under the Drax Contract, the Rentech subsidiary that owns the Wawa Project is required to pay Drax an amount equal to the difference between the contract price for the wood pellets and the price of any wood pellets Drax purchases in replacement. Rentech has guaranteed this obligation in an amount not to exceed $20.0 million.

For the Atikokan Project, the Company entered into a ten-year “take-or-pay” contract (the “OPG Contract”) with Ontario Power Generation (“OPG”) under which the Company is required to deliver 45,000 metric tonnes of wood pellets annually starting in 2014. OPG has the option to increase the amount of wood pellets the Company is required to deliver up to 90,000 metric tonnes annually. The Company expects that wood pellets produced at the Atikokan Project not purchased by OPG may be sold to Drax or marketed elsewhere. The Company expects that its initial deliveries to OPG will consist of wood pellets purchased from third party suppliers and wood pellets produced at the Atikokan Project during its early commissioning phase. The Company is targeting its first delivery of wood pellets to OPG by the end of June 2014. The timing of the first delivery of wood pellets is subject to OPG’s commissioning schedule and requested delivery date.

16

Table of Contents

The contracts with Drax and OPG are designed to minimize exposure to variable costs over the ten-year terms by passing through to Drax and OPG increased costs resulting from certain changes in input prices, including general inflation, the price of fuel, and prices of wood supplied to the mills. However, such indexation may not exactly offset increases or decreases in the prices of inputs and the cost of transporting and handling wood pellets.

The Company has contracted with Canadian National Railway Company (the “Canadian National Contract”) for all rail transportation of wood pellets from the Atikokan Project and the Wawa Project to the Port of Quebec. The Atikokan Project and the Wawa Project are located approximately 1,300 track miles and 1,100 track miles, respectively, from the Port of Quebec.

Under the Canadian National Contract, the Company has committed to transport a minimum of 1,500 rail carloads during the months of January 2014 through December 2014, and 3,600 rail carloads annually thereafter for the duration of the long-term contract. Delivery shortfalls would result in a $1,000 per rail car penalty. Under the Drax Contract, the Company is responsible for the transportation of the wood pellets to the Port of Quebec. Drax is obligated to take delivery of the wood pellets on a FOB shipping point basis. Under the OPG Contract, OPG is obligated to take delivery of the Atikokan Project’s product on a FOB basis at the Company’s Atikokan facility.

On November 25, 2013, the Company entered into a one-year wood pellet purchase contract (the “KD Contract”) with KD Quality Pellets. Under the KD Contract, the Company committed to purchase between 15,000 and 20,000 metric tonnes of wood pellets between December 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. The KD Contract provides the Company with an option to extend the term of the agreement to five years. The Company may use the wood pellets that it purchases under the KD Contract to cover shortfalls in production during commissioning of the Atikokan Project, so that it meets its delivery commitments under the OPG Contract. Any wood pellets that the Company purchases under the KD Contract and does not sell to OPG may be aggregated and sold to other consumers, including Drax.

Litigation

The Company is party to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business. The Company accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. In cases where the Company determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made. While the outcome of the Company’s current matters are not estimable or probable, the Company maintains insurance to cover certain actions and believes that resolution of its current litigation matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements.

Regulation

The Company’s business is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental, health and safety regulations governing a wide range of matters, including the emission of air pollutants, the release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water and the storage, handling, use and transportation of the Company’s fertilizer products, raw materials, and other substances that are part of our operations. These laws include the Clean Air Act (the “CAA”), the federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and various other federal, state and local laws and regulations. The laws and regulations to which the Company is subject are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. The ultimate impact on the Company’s business of complying with existing laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that the Company’s operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the CAA, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in August 2013 requiring it to connect a device at the East Dubuque Facility to an ammonia safety flare by December 1, 2015. The Company estimates the cost of the project required by the settlement agreement as being approximately $300,000.

Note 10 — Income Taxes

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company recorded income tax expense of approximately $1.1 million which is comprised of approximately $1.0 million for Rentech and approximately $30,000 income tax expense for RNP. The Company’s effective income tax rate (income tax expense as a percentage of income before income taxes) was 37% for the three months ended March 31, 2014. The differences between the United States federal statutory rate of 35% and the effective rate were primarily attributable to basis difference in foreign subsidiary, impact of foreign earnings and impact of state taxes. The Company has considered results of operations and concluded that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

17

Table of Contents

Note 11 — Segment Information

The Company operates in four business segments, as described below. The operations of Fulghum are included in the Company’s historical results of operations only from the date of the closing of the Fulghum Acquisition, which was May 1, 2013. Results of the energy technologies segment are included in discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. The Company’s four segments are:

The Company’s reportable operating segments have been determined in accordance with the Company’s internal management structure, which is organized based on operating activities. The Company evaluates performance based upon several factors, of which the primary financial measure is segment-operating income.

18

Table of Contents

The Company’s revenue by geographic area, based on where the customer takes title to the product, was as follows:

The following table sets forth assets by geographic area:

Note 12 — Net Loss Per Common Share Allocated to Rentech

Basic loss per common share allocated to Rentech is calculated by dividing net loss allocated to Rentech by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net loss per common share allocated to Rentech is calculated by dividing net loss allocated to Rentech by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding plus the dilutive effect, calculated using the “treasury stock” method for the unvested restricted stock units, outstanding stock options and warrants.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share attributable to the Company (in thousands, except for per share data).

19

Table of Contents

For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, approximately 16.0 million and 3.5 million shares, respectively, of Rentech’s common stock (“Common Stock”) issuable pursuant to stock options, stock warrants and restricted stock units were excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per share because their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.