| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Loss Contingencies — General To the extent we are able to assess the likelihood of a negative outcome for a contingency, our assessments of such likelihood range from remote to probable. If we determine that a negative outcome is probable and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability equal to the estimated amount. If a range of probable loss amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then we accrue an undiscounted liability equal to the minimum amount in the range. In addition, we estimate legal fees that we expect to incur associated with loss contingencies and accrue those costs when they are material and probable of being incurred. We do not record a contingent liability when the likelihood of loss is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the likelihood of loss is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the impact would be material to our consolidated financial statements, we disclose the nature of the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Legal Proceedings — General In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings, including those arising from regulatory and environmental matters. Although we are insured against various risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to fully protect us from losses arising from current or future legal proceedings. Taking into account what we believe to be all relevant known facts and circumstances, and based on what we believe to be reasonable assumptions regarding the application of those facts and circumstances to existing laws and regulations, we do not believe that the outcome of the legal proceedings in which we are currently involved (including those described below) will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental — General Although over the course of the last several years we have made significant investments in our maintenance and integrity programs, and have hired additional personnel in those areas, we have experienced (and likely will experience future) releases of hydrocarbon products into the environment from our pipeline, rail, storage and other facility operations. These releases can result from accidents or from unpredictable man-made or natural forces and may reach surface water bodies, groundwater aquifers or other sensitive environments. Damages and liabilities associated with any such releases from our existing or future assets could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We record environmental liabilities when environmental assessments and/or remedial efforts are probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. Generally, our recording of these accruals coincides with our completion of a feasibility study or our commitment to a formal plan of action. We do not discount our environmental remediation liabilities to present value. We also record environmental liabilities assumed in business combinations based on the estimated fair value of the environmental obligations caused by past operations of the acquired company. We record receivables for amounts recoverable from insurance or from third parties under indemnification agreements in the period that we determine the costs are probable of recovery. Environmental expenditures that pertain to current operations or to future revenues are expensed or capitalized consistent with our capitalization policy for property and equipment. Expenditures that result from the remediation of an existing condition caused by past operations and that do not contribute to current or future profitability are expensed. At June 30, 2017 , our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident, as discussed further below) totaled $150 million , of which $64 million was classified as short-term and $86 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2016 , our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident) totaled $147 million , of which $61 million was classified as short-term and $86 million was classified as long-term. The short- and long-term environmental liabilities referenced above are reflected in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits,” respectively, on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2017 , we had recorded receivables totaling $44 million for amounts probable of recovery under insurance and from third parties under indemnification agreements, of which $26 million was reflected in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” and $18 million was reflected in “Other long-term assets, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2016 , we had recorded $56 million of such receivables, of which $39 million was reflected in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” and $17 million was reflected in “Other long-term assets, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. In some cases, the actual cash expenditures associated with these liabilities may not occur for three years or longer. Our estimates used in determining these reserves are based on information currently available to us and our assessment of the ultimate outcome. Among the many uncertainties that impact our estimates are the necessary regulatory approvals for, and potential modification of, our remediation plans, the limited amount of data available upon initial assessment of the impact of soil or water contamination, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment and the possibility of existing or future legal claims giving rise to additional liabilities. Therefore, although we believe that the reserve is adequate, actual costs incurred (which may ultimately include costs for contingencies that are currently not reasonably estimable or costs for contingencies where the likelihood of loss is currently believed to be only reasonably possible or remote) may be in excess of the reserve and may potentially have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Specific Legal, Environmental or Regulatory Matters Line 901 Incident . In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved. Our estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, we estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean. As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental agencies and regulators initiated investigations into the Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to incur as a result of the Line 901 incident. Set forth below is a brief summary of actions and matters that are currently pending: On May 21, 2015, we received a corrective action order from the United States Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the operation of Line 901 as well as over a second stretch of pipeline extending from Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County to Emidio Pump Station in Kern County, California (Line 903), requiring us to shut down, purge, review, remediate and test Line 901. The corrective action order was subsequently amended on June 3, 2015; November 13, 2015; and June 16, 2016 to require us to take additional corrective actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903 (as amended, the “CAO”). Among other requirements, the CAO also obligates us to conduct a root cause failure analysis with respect to Line 901 and present remedial work plans and restart plans to PHMSA prior to returning Line 901 and 903 to service; the CAO also imposes a pressure restriction on the section of Line 903 between Pentland Pump Station and Emidio Pump Station and requires us to take other specified actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903. We intend to continue to comply with the CAO and to cooperate with any other governmental investigations relating to or arising out of the release. Excavation and removal of the affected section of the pipeline was completed on May 28, 2015. Line 901 and Line 903 have been purged and are not currently operational, with the exception of the Pentland to Emidio segment of Line 903, which remains in service under a pressure restriction. No timeline has been established for the restart of Line 901 or Line 903. On February 17, 2016, PHMSA issued a Preliminary Factual Report of the Line 901 failure, which contains PHMSA’s preliminary findings regarding factual information about the events leading up to the accident and the technical analysis that has been conducted to date. On May 19, 2016, PHMSA issued its final Failure Investigation Report regarding the Line 901 incident. PHMSA’s findings indicate that the direct cause of the Line 901 incident was external corrosion that thinned the pipe wall to a level where it ruptured suddenly and released crude oil. PHMSA also concluded that there were numerous contributory causes of the Line 901 incident, including ineffective protection against external corrosion, failure to detect and mitigate the corrosion and a lack of timely detection and response to the rupture. The report also included copies of various engineering and technical reports regarding the incident. By virtue of its statutory authority, PHMSA has the power and authority to impose fines and penalties on us and cause civil or criminal charges to be brought against us. While to date PHMSA has not imposed any such fines or penalties or any such civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release, their investigation is still open and we may have fines or penalties imposed upon us, or civil or criminal charges brought against us, in the future. On September 11, 2015, we received a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order from PHMSA arising out of its inspection of Lines 901 and 903 in August, September and October of 2013 (the “2013 Audit NOPV”). The 2013 Audit NOPV alleges that the Partnership committed probable violations of various federal pipeline safety regulations by failing to document, or inadequately documenting, certain activities. On October 12, 2015, the Partnership filed a response to the 2013 Audit NOPV. To date, PHMSA has not issued a final order with respect to the 2013 Audit NOPV, nor has it assessed any fines or penalties with respect thereto; however, we cannot provide any assurances that any such fines or penalties will not be assessed against us. In late May of 2015, the California Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorney’s office for the County of Santa Barbara began investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any applicable state or local laws had been violated. On May 16, 2016, PAA and one of its employees were charged by a California state grand jury, pursuant to an indictment filed in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County (the “May 2016 Indictment”), with alleged violations of California law in connection with the Line 901 incident. The indictment included a total of 46 counts, 36 of which were misdemeanor charges relating to wildlife allegedly taken as a result of the accidental release. The remaining 10 counts (currently three felony and seven misdemeanor charges) relate to the release of crude oil or reporting of the release. PAA believes that the criminal charges are unwarranted and that neither PAA nor any of its employees engaged in any criminal behavior at any time in connection with this accident. PAA intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the charges. On July 28, 2016, at an arraignment hearing held in California Superior Court in Santa Barbara County, PAA pled not guilty to all counts. Also in late May of 2015, the United States Attorney for the Department of Justice, Central District of California, Environmental Crimes Section (“DOJ”) began an investigation into whether there were any violations of federal criminal statutes in connection with the Line 901 incident, including potential violations of the federal Clean Water Act. We are cooperating with the DOJ’s investigation by responding to their requests for documents and access to our employees. The DOJ has already spoken to several of our employees and has expressed an interest in talking to other employees; consistent with the terms of our governing organizational documents, we are funding our employees’ defense costs, including the costs of separate counsel engaged to represent such individuals. On August 26, 2015, we received a Request for Information from the EPA relating to Line 901. We have provided various responsive materials to date and we will continue to do so in the future in cooperation with the EPA. While to date no civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release, other than those brought pursuant to the May 2016 Indictment, have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees by PHMSA, DOJ, EPA, the California Attorney General, the Santa Barbara District Attorney or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such governmental agencies, the investigations being conducted by such agencies are still open and we may have fines or penalties imposed upon us, our officers or our employees, or civil or criminal charges brought against us, our officers or our employees in the future, whether by those or other governmental agencies. Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes such as commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas, certain owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. To date, only the commercial fisherman and seafood reseller class has been certified by the court. We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership’s pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in our favor dismissing all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs have refiled their complaint and we are opposing their claims. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters. In addition, four unitholder derivative lawsuits have been filed by certain purported investors in the Partnership against the Partnership, certain of its affiliates and certain officers and directors. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and were administratively consolidated into one action and later dismissed on the basis that Plains Partnership agreements require that derivative suits be filed in Delaware Chancery Court. Following the order dismissing the Texas Federal Court suits, a new derivative suit brought by different plaintiffs was filed in Delaware Chancery Court. The other remaining lawsuit was filed in State District Court in Harris County, Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in gross mismanagement and made false and misleading statements, among other similar allegations, in connection with their management and oversight of the Partnership during the period of time leading up to and following the Line 901 release. The plaintiffs in the two remaining lawsuits claim that the Partnership suffered unspecified damages as a result of the actions of the various defendants and seek to hold the defendants liable for such damages, in addition to other remedies. The defendants deny the allegations in these lawsuits and have responded accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits. We have also had two lawsuits filed against us wherein the respective plaintiffs seek to compel the production of certain books and records that purportedly relate to the Line 901 incident, our alleged failure to comply with certain regulations and other matters. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware. We have also received several other individual lawsuits and complaints from companies and individuals alleging damages arising out of the Line 901 incident. These lawsuits and claims generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some cases permanent injunctive relief. In addition to the foregoing, as the “responsible party” for the Line 901 incident we are liable for various costs and for certain natural resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act, and we also have exposure to the payment of additional fines, penalties and costs under other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations. To the extent any such costs are reasonably estimable, we have included an estimate of such costs in the loss accrual described below. Taking the foregoing into account, as of June 30, 2017 , we estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately $300 million , which estimate includes actual and projected emergency response and clean-up costs, natural resource damage assessments and certain third party claims settlements, as well as estimates for fines, penalties and certain legal fees. We accrued such estimate of aggregate total costs to “Field operating costs” primarily during 2015. This estimate considers our prior experience in environmental investigation and remediation matters and available data from, and in consultation with, our environmental and other specialists, as well as currently available facts and presently enacted laws and regulations. We have made assumptions for (i) the duration of the natural resource damage assessment process and the ultimate amount of damages determined, (ii) the resolution of certain third party claims and lawsuits, but excluding claims and lawsuits with respect to which losses are not probable and reasonably estimable, and excluding future claims and lawsuits, (iii) the determination and calculation of fines and penalties, but excluding fines and penalties that are not probable and reasonably estimable and (iv) the nature, extent and cost of legal services that will be required in connection with all lawsuits, claims and other matters requiring legal or expert advice associated with the Line 901 incident. Our estimate does not include any lost revenue associated with the shutdown of Line 901 or 903 and does not include any liabilities or costs that are not reasonably estimable at this time or that relate to contingencies where we currently regard the likelihood of loss as being only reasonably possible or remote. We believe we have accrued adequate amounts for all probable and reasonably estimable costs; however, this estimate is subject to uncertainties associated with the assumptions that we have made. For example, the amount of time it takes for us to resolve all of the current and future lawsuits, claims and investigations that relate to the Line 901 incident could turn out to be significantly longer than we have assumed, and as a result the costs we incur for legal services could be significantly higher than we have estimated. In addition, with respect to fines and penalties, the ultimate amount of any fines and penalties assessed against us depends on a wide variety of factors, many of which are not estimable at this time. Where fines and penalties are probable and estimable, we have included them in our estimate, although such estimates could turn out to be wrong. Accordingly, our assumptions and estimates may turn out to be inaccurate and our total costs could turn out to be materially higher; therefore, we can provide no assurance that we will not have to accrue significant additional costs in the future with respect to the Line 901 incident. As of June 30, 2017 , we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $78 million related to this event, of which approximately $53 million is presented as a current liability in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, with the remainder presented in “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits”. We maintain insurance coverage, which is subject to certain exclusions and deductibles, in the event of such environmental liabilities. Subject to such exclusions and deductibles, we believe that our coverage is adequate to cover the current estimated total emergency response and clean-up costs, claims settlement costs and remediation costs and we believe that this coverage is also adequate to cover any potential increase in the estimates for these costs that exceed the amounts currently identified. Through June 30, 2017 , we had collected, subject to customary reservations, $166 million out of the approximate $205 million of release costs that we believe are probable of recovery from insurance carriers, net of deductibles. Therefore, as of June 30, 2017 , we have recognized a receivable of approximately $39 million for the portion of the release costs that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles and amounts already collected. Of this amount, approximately $21 million is recognized as a current asset in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, with the remainder in “Other long-term assets, net”. We have completed the required clean-up and remediation work as determined by the Unified Command and the Unified Command has been dissolved; however, we expect to make payments for additional costs associated with restoration of the impacted areas, as well as natural resource damage assessment and compensation, legal, professional and regulatory costs, in addition to fines and penalties, during future periods. In the Matter of Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al. On April 30, 2015, the EPA issued a Finding and Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC, our subsidiary, for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, as amended. The NOV, which cites 10 separate rule violations, questions the validity of construction and operating permits issued to our Bakersfield rail unloading facility in 2012 and 2014 by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the “SJV District”). We believe we fully complied with all applicable regulatory requirements and that the permits issued to us by the SJV District are valid. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this matter; however, it is possible that fines and penalties could be assessed in the future. Mesa to Basin Pipeline . On January 6, 2016, PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty relating to an approximate 500 barrel release of crude oil that took place on January 1, 2015 on our Mesa to Basin 12” pipeline in Midland, Texas. PHMSA conducted an accident investigation and reviewed documentation related to the incident, and concluded that we had committed probable violations of certain pipeline safety regulations. In the Notice, PHMSA maintains that we failed to carry out our written damage prevention program and to follow our pipeline excavation/ditching and backfill procedures on four separate occasions, and that such failures resulted in outside force damage that led to the January 1, 2015 release. In early March 2017, PHMSA issued a final order that concluded that we followed our pipeline excavation/ditching and backfill procedures, but maintained that we failed to carry out our written damage prevention program and imposed a civil penalty of $184,300 . We have since paid such penalty in full and do not anticipate any further action by PHMSA with respect to this matter. |
