| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 10—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 March 31, 2016, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident, as discussed further below) totaled $176 million, of which $69 million was classified as short-term and $107 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2015, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident) totaled $185 million, of which $81 million was classified as short-term and $104 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 March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had recorded receivables totaling $81 million and $161 million, respectively, for amounts probable of recovery under insurance and from third parties under indemnification agreements, which are predominantly reflected in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
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, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The cause of the release remains under investigation. Our current “worst case” estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that we believed could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels.
As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental agencies and regulators have 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. On June 3, 2015, the corrective action order was amended to require us to take additional corrective actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903, and on November 13, 2015, the corrective action order was further amended to require the purge and shutdown of Line 903 between Gaviota and Pentland (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 Line 903 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. 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. 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 pursued any such civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release, there can be no assurance that such fines or penalties will not be imposed upon us, or that such civil or criminal charges will not be 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, on behalf of the EPA, 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. In addition to the DOJ, the California Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office for the County of Santa Barbara are also investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any applicable state or local laws have been violated. On August 26, 2015, we also received a Request for Information from the EPA relating to Line 901 and we are in the process of responding to such request. While to date no civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees by PHMSA, DOJ, EPA, California Attorney General or Santa Barbara County District Attorney, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such governmental agencies, there can be no assurance that such fines or penalties will not be imposed upon us, our officers or our employees, or that such civil or criminal charges will not be 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 eight class action lawsuits filed against us, seven 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 persons that derive a significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, 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.
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, deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond 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 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, three 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 the other 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 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 intend to respond 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 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware 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.
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 March 31, 2016, we estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately $269 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. 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 expected number of days that monitoring services will be required, (ii) the duration of the natural resource damage assessment and the ultimate amount of damages determined, (iii) 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, (iv) the determination and calculation of fines and penalties, but excluding fines and penalties that are not probable and reasonably estimable and (v) 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 March 31, 2016, we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $104 million related to this event, the majority of which is presented as a current liability in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. 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 March 31, 2016, we had collected, subject to customary reservations, $112 million out of the approximate $186 million of release costs that we believe are probable of recovery from insurance carriers, net of deductibles. Therefore, as of March 31, 2016, we have recognized a receivable of approximately $74 million for the portion of the release costs that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles and amounts already collected. A majority of this receivable has been recognized as a current asset in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We have substantially completed the clean-up and remediation efforts, excluding long-term site monitoring activities; however, we expect to make payments for additional costs associated with restoration and monitoring of the area, as well as natural resource damage assessment, legal, professional and regulatory costs, in addition to fines and penalties, during future periods.
MP29 Release. On July 10, 2015 , we experienced a crude oil release of approximately 100 barrels at our Pocahontas Pump Station near the border of Bond and Madison Counties in Illinois, approximately 40 miles from St. Louis, Missouri. The Pocahontas Station is part of the Capwood pipeline that runs from our Patoka Station to Wood River, Illinois. A portion of the released crude oil was contained within our Pocahontas facility, but some of the released crude oil entered a nearby waterway where it was contained with booms. On July 14, 2015, PHMSA issued a corrective action order requiring us to take various actions in response to the release, including remediation, reporting and other actions. As of December 18, 2015, we had submitted all requested information and reports required by the corrective action order and are currently awaiting PHMSA’s comment or approval. On August 10, 2015, we received a Notice of Violation from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the “Agency”) alleging violations relating to the release and outlining the activities recommended by the Agency to resolve the alleged violations, including the completion of an investigation and various remediation activities. The Agency approved a work plan describing remediation activities proposed for remaining hydrocarbons at Pocahontas Station and affected waterways. Remediation activities under this work plan have effectively been completed, and on December 17, 2015, we entered into a Compliance Commitment Agreement with the Agency, which provides the framework for final completion and documentation of the remediation effort. 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. In connection with this incident, we have also had one class action lawsuit filed against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. We estimate that the aggregate total costs associated with this release will be less than $10 million.
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. PHMSA’s compliance officer has recommended that we be assessed a civil penalty of $190,000. We have formally responded to PHMSA regarding this matter, but at this point we can provide no assurance regarding the final disposition of this matter or the final amount of any civil penalties. |
