Contingent Liabilities | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Contingent Liabilities | ' |
Note 11 – Contingent Liabilities |
Indemnification of WPX Matters |
We have agreed to indemnify our former affiliate, WPX and its subsidiaries, related to the following matters. In connection with this indemnification, we have accrued asset and liability balances associated with these matters, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to future developments in these matters. |
Issues resulting from California energy crisis |
WPX’s former power business was engaged in power marketing in various geographic areas, including California. Prices charged for power by WPX and other traders and generators in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001 were challenged in various proceedings, including those before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). WPX has entered into settlements with the State of California (State Settlement), major California utilities (Utilities Settlement), and others that substantially resolved each of these issues with these parties. |
Although the State Settlement and Utilities Settlement resolved a significant portion of the refund issues among the settling parties, WPX continued to have potential refund exposure to nonsettling parties, including various California end users that did not participate in the Utilities Settlement. On April 24, 2014, the FERC approved a settlement among the California utilities, WPX, and us which resolves WPX’s collection of accrued interest from counterparties as well as WPX’s payment of accrued interest on refund amounts. The settlement will resolve most of WPX’s legal issues arising from the 2000-2001 California Energy Crisis. We currently have a net receivable from WPX related to these matters. |
Reporting of natural gas-related information to trade publications |
Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. |
In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX’s joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs’ state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. On August 26, 2013, WPX and the other defendants filed their petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items and our related indemnification obligation could result in future charges that may be material to our results of operations. |
Other Legal Matters |
Geismar Incident |
As a result of the previously discussed Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities, and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious. WPZ is cooperating with the Chemical Safety Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding their investigations of the Geismar Incident. On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility on June 24 through 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA’s preliminary determinations about the facility’s documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. We and the EPA continue to discuss such preliminary determinations, and the EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations. On December 11, 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued citations in connection with its investigation of the June 13, 2013 incident, which included a Notice of Penalty for $99,000. Although we and OSHA continue settlement negotiations, we are contesting the citations. On June 25, 2013, OSHA commenced a second inspection pursuant to its Refinery and Chemical National Emphasis Program (NEP). OSHA has not issued any citation to WPZ in connection with this NEP inspection. There is a six month statute of limitations for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or regulations promulgated under such act. On June 28, 2013, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) issued a Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice of Potential Penalty to Williams Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of unpermitted emissions and other deviations under the Clean Air Act that the parties had been negotiating since 2010 and alleged unpermitted emissions arising from the Geismar Incident. Negotiations with the LDEQ are ongoing. Any potential fines and penalties from these agencies would not be covered by our insurance policy. Additionally, multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, and personal injury, have been filed against various of our subsidiaries. |
Due to the ongoing investigation into the cause of the incident, and the limited information available associated with the filed lawsuits, which do not specify any amounts for claimed damages, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss related to these contingencies at this time. |
Gulf Liquids litigation |
Gulf Liquids, one of our subsidiaries, contracted with Gulsby Engineering Inc. (Gulsby) and Gulsby-Bay (a joint venture between Gulsby and Bay Ltd.) for the construction of certain gas processing plants in Louisiana. National American Insurance Company (NAICO) and American Home Assurance Company provided payment and performance bonds for the projects. In 2001, the contractors and sureties filed multiple cases in Louisiana and Texas against Gulf Liquids and us. In 2006, at the conclusion of the consolidated trial of the asserted contract and tort claims, the jury returned its actual and punitive damages verdict against us and Gulf Liquids. From May through October 2007, the court entered seven post-trial orders in the case which, among other things, overruled the verdict award of tort and punitive damages as well as any damages against us. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2008, the court issued its judgment awarding certain damages against Gulf Liquids in favor of Gulsby and Gulsby-Bay. Gulf Liquids, Gulsby, Gulsby-Bay, Bay Ltd., and NAICO appealed the judgment. In February 2009, we settled with Gulsby-Bay and Bay. On February 17, 2011, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the dismissals of the tort and punitive damages claims and reversed and remanded the remaining claims for further proceedings. None of the parties filed a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. On May 8, 2012, the Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate remanding the original breach of contract claims involving Gulsby and attorney fee claims to trial court. Trial is set for October 14, 2014. In 2006, we accrued a charge, and related interest, for our estimate of probable loss associated with the initial adverse verdict. From 2008 through 2011, the amount accrued was reduced based on subsequent judgments and settlement payments. As of March 31, 2014, we have a remaining accrued liability of $13 million associated with the litigation. |
Alaska refinery contamination litigation |
In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA have made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination. |
In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other’s claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that the applicable statute of limitations bars all FHRA’s claims against us and dismissed those claims with prejudice. FHRA has asked the court to reconsider and clarify its ruling, and we anticipate that FHRA will appeal the court’s decision. |
We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount. |
Independent of the litigation matter described in the preceding paragraphs, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicated that it views FHRA and us as responsible parties. During the first quarter of 2013 and again on December 23, 2013, ADEC informed FHRA and us that ADEC intends to enter a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work outside the refinery’s boundaries to be performed in 2014. In addition, ADEC will seek from each of FHRA and us an adequate financial performance guarantee for the benefit of ADEC. On March 6, 2014, the State of Alaska filed suit against FHRA and us in state court in Fairbanks seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the sulfolane contamination. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination and the ultimate cost of remediation and division of costs among the potentially responsible parties, we are unable to estimate a range of exposure at this time. |
Transco 2012 rate case |
On August 31, 2012, Transco submitted to the FERC a general rate filing principally designed to recover increased costs and to comply with the terms of the settlement in its prior rate proceedings. The new rates became effective March 1, 2013, subject to refund and the outcome of the hearing. On August 27, 2013, Transco filed a stipulation and agreement with the FERC proposing to resolve all issues in this proceeding without the need for a hearing (Agreement). On December 6, 2013, the FERC issued an order approving the Agreement without modifications. Pursuant to its terms, the Agreement became effective March 1, 2014. As of March 31, 2014, Accounts Payable includes $118 million for rate refunds that were subsequently paid on April 18, 2014. |
Environmental Matters |
We are a participant in certain environmental activities in various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations and remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently do not own. We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated effort with other potentially responsible parties, the EPA, and other governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities and solely responsible in others. Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred, or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental laws. As of March 31, 2014, we have accrued liabilities totaling $46 million for these matters, as discussed below. Our accrual reflects the most likely costs of cleanup, which are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. Certain assessment studies are still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield significantly different estimates of most likely costs. Any incremental amount in excess of amounts currently accrued cannot be reasonably estimated at this time due to uncertainty about the actual number of contaminated sites ultimately identified, the actual amount and extent of contamination discovered and the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA and other governmental authorities. |
The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely promulgate and propose new rules, and issue updated guidance to existing rules. More recent rules and rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine maximum achievable control technology, new air quality standards for ground level ozone, one hour nitrogen dioxide emission limits, and new air quality standards impacting storage vessels, pressure valves, and compressors. We are unable to estimate the costs of asset additions or modifications necessary to comply with these new regulations due to uncertainty created by the various legal challenges to these regulations and the need for further specific regulatory guidance. |
Continuing operations |
Our interstate gas pipelines are involved in remediation activities related to certain facilities and locations for polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous substances. These activities have involved the EPA and various state environmental authorities, resulting in our identification as a potentially responsible party at various Superfund waste sites. At March 31, 2014, we have accrued liabilities of $13 million for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates. |
We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination. At March 31, 2014, we have accrued liabilities totaling $7 million for these costs. |
Former operations, including operations classified as discontinued |
We have potential obligations in connection with assets and businesses we no longer operate. These potential obligations include remediation activities at the direction of federal and state environmental authorities and the indemnification of the purchasers of certain of these assets and businesses for environmental and other liabilities existing at the time the sale was consummated. Our responsibilities relate to the operations of the assets and businesses described below. |
| |
• | Former agricultural fertilizer and chemical operations and former retail petroleum and refining operations; |
| |
• | Former petroleum products and natural gas pipelines; |
| |
• | Former petroleum refining facilities; |
| |
• | Former exploration and production and mining operations; |
| |
• | Former electricity and natural gas marketing and trading operations. |
At March 31, 2014, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $26 million related to these matters. |
Other Divestiture Indemnifications |
Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax, historic litigation, personal injury, property damage, environmental matters, right of way and other representations that we have provided. |
At March 31, 2014, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims against us involving the indemnities; thus, we do not expect any of the indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a material impact on our future financial position. Any claim for indemnity brought against us in the future may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the claim is made. |
In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are pending against us which are incidental to our operations. |
|
Summary |
We have disclosed our estimated range of reasonably possible losses for certain matters above, as well as all significant matters for which we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. We estimate that for all other matters for which we are able to reasonably estimate a range of loss, our aggregate reasonably possible losses beyond amounts accrued are immaterial to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity and financial position. These calculations have been made without consideration of any potential recovery from third parties. |