| 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 and storage 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.
At June 30, 2015, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident, as discussed further below) totaled $297 million, of which $197 million was classified as short-term and $100 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2014, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled $82 million, of which $13 million was classified as short-term and $69 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, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had recorded receivables totaling $200 million and $8 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 legal claims giving rise to additional liabilities. Therefore, although we believe that the reserve is adequate, costs incurred 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 . During 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 and contamination monitoring continue, and the cause of the release is currently under investigation.
Although the precise volume of crude oil released in connection with this incident has not been determined, following the release, we developed and have periodically updated a “worst case” estimate of the amount of oil spilled, which represents what we believe to be the maximum volume of oil that could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information available at the time of such calculation. Our worst-case estimate has been developed primarily using information regarding (i) an estimate of the amount of oil that flowed into Line 901 during the period between the estimated time of release and the point when the pumps were shut down and (ii) an estimate of the volume of oil that drained out of the line due to the natural force of gravity based on the characteristics of the pipeline (i.e., length, elevation profile, diameter and location of the release point). Using this “drain-down” methodology, our worst case estimate of the volume of oil released totaled approximately 2,400 barrels. We believe that the “drain-down” methodology represents the most straight forward and accurate calculation of the potential worst case discharge.
In the second half of June we completed the process of emptying and purging Line 901, which resulted in the removal of approximately 26,500 barrels of crude oil from the line. This activity provided additional data to assess the reasonableness of our worst case estimate of 2,400 barrels based on the “drain-down” methodology. Based on a preliminary analysis, an alternative calculation using the purge data could be as much as 1,000 barrels higher than the worst-case estimate calculated using the drain-down methodology. However, the alternative calculation does not take into account certain factors that could account for a meaningful portion of the difference between the two calculations and this reconciliation process is ongoing. As part of our effort to reconcile these differences, we have retained an outside, third party consulting firm to review the materials and submit a report, but such study has not been completed. Accordingly, to date we have not finalized our calculation of the “worst case” estimate of the amount of oil released from Line 901, and such volume estimate may change as additional facts, data and information are analyzed during the course of the investigation of this incident. Any variance between the current and final estimate of the worst case discharge is not expected to impact our estimate of response, clean-up or remediation costs, but could impact our estimate of fines and penalties.
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. Set forth below is a brief summary of such actions and matters:
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 that has 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 (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 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 fully intend 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. No timeline has been established for the restart of Line 901. 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, 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.
In late May, 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 expressed an interest in talking to several of our employees and consistent with the terms of our governing organizational documents, we are funding their 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 have also announced that they are investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any applicable state or local laws have been violated. While to date no civil or criminal charges have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees by the DOJ, California Attorney General or Santa Barbara County District Attorney, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such governmental agents, 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.
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 as we receive them. In addition, we have also had six class action lawsuits filed against us, all of which have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, these lawsuits have been brought by various plaintiffs 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 businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release.
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, we estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately $257 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 does not include any lost revenue associated with the shutdown of Line 901 or 903. In addition, 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 clean up, remediation and monitoring services will be required, the number of personnel and equipment required at the site and the rates charged by the associated service and equipment providers, (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 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. 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. Our assumptions and estimates may turn out to be inaccurate and our total costs could turn out to be higher; accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will not have to accrue additional costs in the future with respect to the Line 901 incident.
We have accrued such estimate of aggregate total costs to “Field operating costs” on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. As of June 30, 2015, we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $221 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 Sheets. 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. We therefore have recognized a receivable of $192 million as of June 30, 2015 for the portion of the release costs that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles. 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 Sheets with the offset reducing “Field operating costs” on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. We currently expect that the clean-up and remediation efforts, excluding long-term site monitoring activities, will be substantially completed during 2015; 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. We are in the process of satisfying the requirements of the corrective action order. 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. In this lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and other remedies on behalf of itself and other unspecified similarly situated claimants. We estimate that the aggregate total costs associated with this release will be less than $10 million.
Cushing Tank Cathodic Protection . On May 22, 2015, PHMSA issued a Final Order relating to an April 2013 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order alleging that we did not maintain adequate cathodic protection for certain tanks at our Cushing Terminal. In its 2013 Notice of Probable Violation, PHMSA maintained that the proprietary cathodic protection system utilized by us for certain of our storage tanks at our Cushing, Oklahoma facility was not contemplated by applicable regulations. In response to the notice, we provided extensive documentation and supporting information regarding the effectiveness of the technology we were utilizing, including past communications with PHMSA regarding the topic. At a hearing in August 2013 we gave a formal presentation on the technology, provided empirical data confirming its effectiveness and also had a third party corrosion expert witness speak to the effectiveness of the technology. Almost two years later, PHMSA issued the Final Order and Compliance Order dated May 22, 2015 ruling against our position, assessing a penalty of $102,900 and specifying certain corrective actions to be completed by us. We chose not to further contest this matter and paid the penalty on June 5, 2015. On July 14, 2015, we submitted to PHMSA a Remediation Plan and schedule to satisfy the conditions of the Compliance Order.
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.
National Energy Board Audit. In the third quarter of 2014, the National Energy Board (“NEB”) of Canada notified PMC that various corrective actions from a 2010 audit had not been completed to the satisfaction of the NEB. The NEB initiated a process to assess PMC’s approach to compliance with the NEB’s Onshore Pipeline Regulations, which process resulted in the issuance by the NEB of an order on January 15, 2015 that imposed six conditions on PMC designed to enhance PMC’s ability to operate its pipelines in a manner that protects the public and the environment. The conditions include the filing of certain safety critical tasks, controls and programs with the NEB, external audits of certain PMC programs and systems, and periodic update meetings with NEB staff regarding the status and progress of corrective actions. In early February 2015, the NEB imposed a penalty on PMC of $76,000 CAD related to these issues. It is possible that additional fines and penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future related to this matter.
Kemp River Pipeline Releases . During May and June 2013, two separate releases were discovered on our Kemp River pipeline in Northern Alberta, Canada that, in the aggregate, resulted in the release of approximately 700 barrels of condensate and light crude oil. Clean-up and remediation activities are being conducted in cooperation with the applicable regulatory agencies. Final investigation by the Alberta Energy Regulator is not complete. To date, no charges, fines or penalties have been assessed against PMC with respect to these releases; however, it is possible that fines or penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future. We estimate that the aggregate clean-up and remediation costs associated with these releases will be $15 million. Through June 30, 2015, we spent $9 million in connection with clean-up and remediation activities.
Bay Springs Pipeline Release. During February 2013, we experienced a crude oil release of approximately 120 barrels on a portion of one of our pipelines near Bay Springs, Mississippi. Most of the released crude oil was contained within our pipeline right of way, but some of the released crude oil entered a nearby waterway where it was contained with booms. The EPA has issued an administrative order requiring us to take various actions in response to the release, including remediation, reporting and other actions. We have satisfied the requirements of the administrative order; however, we may be subjected to a civil penalty. The aggregate cost to clean up and remediate the site was $6 million. |
