| 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 September 30, 2015, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident, as discussed further below) totaled $197 million, of which $96 million was classified as short-term and $101 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 September 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.
Shortly after the incident, we developed an initial “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 available at the time of such calculation. Our initial worst case estimate was approximately 2,500 barrels, which was subsequently adjusted down to approximately 2,400 barrels . These estimates were based primarily on 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 natural force s based on the characteristics of the pipeline (i.e., length, elevation profile, diameter and location of the release point).
Utilizing information that became available in June as a result of emptying and purging Line 901, we developed an alternative worst case discharge estimate of up to 3,400 barrels. This alternative estimate did not take into account certain factors that, while difficult to quantify, could account for a meaningful portion of the difference between the two estimates . As part of our effort to reconcile the difference between these two estimates , we retained a third party engineering and consulting firm to develop an independent estimate of the worst case discharge.
Although we have not yet received such firm’s final written report, we have discussed their findings with them. T hey have orally advised us that based on their detailed analysis of the pertinent data and materials, their estimate of the worst case discharge is approximately 3,000 barrels . Accordingly, while we have not finalized our calculation of the “worst case” discharge, based on the relatively narrow range of difference between the low and high end of the range of various worst case estimates that have been prepared, we do not anticipate that any variance between these estimates and the final estimate of the worst case discharge will have a material impact on our accrual (described below) for the estimated total costs that we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident.
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 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. No timeline has been established for the restart of Line 901 or Line 903 . 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.
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, 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 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 have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees by the DOJ, EPA, California Attorney General or Santa Barbara County District Attorney, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such governmental agen cies , 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 seven 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 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 plaintiffs. The Partnership and PAGP deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly.
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 September 30, 2015, we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $126 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 September 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 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. We are in the process of satisfying the requirements of the corrective action order. On August 10, 2015, we received a Notice of Violation from the Illinois Environmental Protection 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 Partnership has submitted a work plan to the agency that describes the proposed remediation activities for any remaining hydrocarbon impacts; the agency is currently reviewing the work plan. 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 September 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 . |
