| Litigation and Environmental | 10. Litigation and Environmental We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact to our business. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose the following contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. EPNG FERC Proceeding On April 21, 2022, EPNG was notified by the FERC of the commencement of a rate proceeding against it pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act. This proceeding sets the matter for hearing to determine whether EPNG’s current rates remain just and reasonable. A proceeding under Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act is prospective in nature such that a change in rates charged to customers, if any, would likely only occur after the FERC has issued a final order. Unless a settlement is reached sooner, an initial Administrative Law Judge decision is anticipated in the second quarter of 2023. We are engaged actively in settlement discussions and anticipate joining with FERC Trial Staff and other active participants in the proceeding in filing an unopposed motion to suspend the procedural schedule to enable the parties to prepare documents necessary to document a settlement in principle that would fully resolve the proceeding. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of this proceeding will have a material adverse impact to our business. Gulf LNG Facility Disputes On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received a Notice of Arbitration from Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA), one of two companies that entered into a terminal use agreement for capacity of the Gulf LNG Facility in Mississippi for an initial term that was not scheduled to expire until the year 2031. Eni USA is an indirect subsidiary of Eni S.p.A., a multi-national integrated energy company headquartered in Milan, Italy. The Notice of Arbitration sought declaratory and monetary relief based upon Eni USA’s assertion that (i) the terminal use agreement should be terminated because changes in the U.S. natural gas market since the execution of the agreement in December 2007 “frustrated the essential purpose” of the agreement and (ii) activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC “in connection with a plan to convert the LNG Facility into a liquefaction/export facility have given rise to a contractual right on the part of Eni USA to terminate” the agreement. On June 29, 2018, the arbitration tribunal delivered an Award that called for the termination of the agreement and Eni USA’s payment of compensation to GLNG. On February 1, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a Final Order and Judgment confirming the Award, which was paid by Eni USA on February 20, 2019. On September 28, 2018, GLNG filed a lawsuit against Eni S.p.A. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County to enforce a Guarantee Agreement entered into by Eni S.p.A. in connection with the terminal use agreement. In response to the foregoing lawsuit, Eni S.p.A. filed counterclaims under the terminal use agreement and claims under a parent direct agreement with Gulf LNG Energy (Port), LLC. The foregoing claims asserted by Eni S.p.A seek unspecified damages and involve the same allegations as the claims which were resolved conclusively in the arbitrations with Eni USA described above and with GLNG’s remaining customer as described below. On January 4, 2022, the trial court entered a decision granting Eni S.p.A’s motion for summary judgment on the claims asserted by GLNG to enforce the Guarantee Agreement. GLNG filed an interlocutory appeal of the decision. Pending resolution of GLNG’s appeal and further proceedings in the trial court, the foregoing counterclaims and other claims asserted by Eni S.p.A under the terminal use agreement and parent direct agreement remain pending in the trial court. On December 20, 2019, GLNG’s remaining customer, Angola LNG Supply Services LLC (ALSS), a consortium of international oil companies including Eni S.p.A., filed a Notice of Arbitration seeking a declaration that its terminal use agreement should be deemed terminated as of March 1, 2016 on substantially the same terms and conditions as set forth in the arbitration award pertaining to Eni USA. On July 15, 2021, the arbitration tribunal delivered an Award on the merits of all claims submitted to the tribunal and denied all of ALSS’s claims with prejudice. On November 23, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a Final Order and Judgment confirming the Award. Continental Resources, Inc. v. Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC On December 8, 2017, Continental Resources, Inc. (CLR) filed an action in Garfield County, Oklahoma state court alleging that Hiland Partners Holdings, LLC (Hiland Partners) breached a Gas Purchase Agreement, dated November 12, 2010, as amended (GPA), by failing to receive and purchase all of CLR’s dedicated gas under the GPA produced in three North Dakota counties. CLR also alleged fraud, maintaining that Hiland Partners promised the construction of several additional facilities to process the gas without an intention to build the facilities. Hiland Partners denied these allegations, but the parties entered into a settlement agreement in June 2018, under which CLR agreed to release all of its claims in exchange for Hiland Partners’ construction of 10 infrastructure projects by November 1, 2020. CLR filed an amended petition in which it asserted that Hiland Partners’ failure to construct certain facilities by specific dates nullified the release contained in the settlement agreement. CLR’s amended petition asserted additional claims under both the GPA and a May 8, 2008 gas purchase contract covering additional North Dakota counties, including CLR’s contention that Hiland Partners was not allowed to deduct third-party processing fees from the gas purchase price. CLR sought damages in excess of $276 million. On September 14, 2022, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, including an unconditional release and dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. Freeport LNG Winter Storm Litigation On September 13, 2021, Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC (Freeport) filed suit against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No. 2021-58787) alleging that defendants breached the parties’ base contract for sale and purchase of natural gas by failing to repurchase natural gas nominated by Freeport between February 10-22, 2021 during Winter Storm Uri. We deny that we were obligated to repurchase natural gas from Freeport given our declaration of force majeure during the storm and our compliance with emergency orders issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas providing heightened priority for the delivery of gas to human needs customers. Freeport alleges that it is owed approximately $104 million, plus attorney fees and interest. We believe that our declaration of force majeure was valid and we intend to vigorously defend this case. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. Arizona Line 2000 Rupture On August 15, 2021, the 30” EPNG Line 2000 natural gas transmission pipeline ruptured in a rural area in Coolidge, Arizona. The failure resulted in a fire which destroyed a home, resulting in two fatalities and one injury. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. The impacted pipeline segment is currently out of service. While no litigation is pending at this time, we notified our insurers of the incident and do not expect that the resolution of claims will have a material adverse impact to our business. General As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, our total reserve for legal matters was $42 million and $231 million, respectively. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO 2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of local, state and federal environmental and safety regulations. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties will be material to our business, individually or in the aggregate. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under state or federal administrative orders or related remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the remediation efforts. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in several federal and state Superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, crude oil, NGL, natural gas or CO 2 . PHMSA Enforcement Matter for KMLT Midwest Terminals On July 11, 2022, Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals (KMLT) received a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) from PHMSA relating to inspections conducted during 2021 at KMLT’s Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Dayton, Argo, O’Hare, and Wood River Terminals. The NOPV alleges 16 violations of Department of Transportation regulations. The NOPV proposes a penalty of approximately $455,000 and seeks a compliance agreement relating to three of the alleged violations. The alleged violations are predominately procedural in nature. On September 1, 2022, we submitted a Request for Hearing, Statement of Issues and Response to the NOPV. At the same time we initiated settlement discussions with PHMSA which are ongoing. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve this matter, including any costs to implement a compliance agreement, will have a material adverse impact to our business. Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that established a final remedy and cleanup plan for an industrialized area on the lower reach of the Willamette River commonly referred to as the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (PHSS). The cost for the final remedy is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion and active cleanup is expected to take more than 10 years to complete. KMLT, KMBT, and some 90 other PRPs identified by the EPA are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs related to the final remedy set forth by the ROD. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities) and KMBT (in connection with its ownership or operation of two facilities). Effective January 31, 2020, KMLT entered into separate Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent (ASAOC) to complete remedial design for two distinct areas within the PHSS associated with KMLT’s facilities. The ASAOC obligates KMLT to pay a share of the remedial design costs for cleanup activities related to these two areas as required by the ROD. Our share of responsibility for the PHSS costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. At this time we anticipate the non-judicial allocation process will be complete in or around October 2023. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the PHSS. Because costs associated with any remedial plan are expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the costs of the remediation will have a material adverse impact to our business. In addition to CERCLA cleanup costs, we are reviewing and will attempt to settle, if possible, natural resource damage (NRD) claims in the amount of approximately $5 million asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the PHSS. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., a historical subsidiary of EPNG, mined approximately 20 uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the U.S. to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA’s investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a PRP within the meaning of CERCLA. In August 2013, EPNG and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent and Scope of Work pursuant to which EPNG is conducting environmental assessments of the mines and the immediate vicinity. On September 3, 2014, EPNG filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona seeking cost recovery and contribution from the applicable federal government agencies toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines. The U.S. District Court issued an order on April 16, 2019 that allocated 35% of past and future response costs to the U.S. The decision does not provide or establish the scope of a remedial plan with respect to the sites, nor does it establish the total cost for addressing the sites, all of which remain to be determined in subsequent proceedings and adversarial actions, if necessary, with the EPA. Until such issues are determined, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability. Because costs associated with any remedial plan approved by the EPA are expected to be spread over at least several years, we do not anticipate that our share of the costs of the remediation will have a material adverse impact to our business. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (collectively EPEC) are identified as PRPs in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. EPEC entered into two Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) with the EPA which obligates EPEC to investigate and characterize contamination at the Site. EPEC is part of a joint defense group of approximately 44 cooperating parties which is directing and funding the AOC work required by the EPA. We have established a reserve for the anticipated cost of compliance with these two AOCs. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the lower eight miles of the Site. At that time the cleanup plan in the ROD was estimated to cost $1.7 billion. The cleanup is expected to take at least six years to complete once it begins. In addition, the EPA and numerous PRPs, including EPEC, engaged in an allocation process for the implementation of the remedy for the lower eight miles of the Site. That process was completed December 28, 2020 and certain PRPs, including EPEC, are engaged in discussions with the EPA as a result thereof. There remains significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the lower eight mile ROD. On October 4, 2021, the EPA issued a ROD for the upper nine miles of the Site. The cleanup plan in the ROD is estimated to cost $440 million. No timeline for the cleanup has been established. Certain PRPs, including EPEC, are engaged in discussions with the EPA concerning the upper nine miles. There remains significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the upper nine mile ROD. Until the ongoing discussions with the EPA conclude, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability. We do not anticipate that our share of the costs to resolve this matter, including the costs of any remediation of the Site, will have a material adverse impact to our business. Louisiana Governmental Coastal Zone Erosion Litigation Beginning in 2013, several parishes in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans filed separate lawsuits in state district courts in Louisiana against a number of oil and gas companies, including TGP and SNG. In these cases, the parishes and New Orleans, as Plaintiffs, allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (SLCRMA) and that those operations caused substantial damage to the coastal waters of Louisiana and nearby lands. The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the affected areas. There are more than 40 of these cases pending in Louisiana against oil and gas companies, one of which is against TGP and one of which is against SNG, both described further below. On November 8, 2013, the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana against TGP and 17 other energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ operations in Plaquemines Parish violated SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Plaquemines Parish seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In December 2013, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In April 2015, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court for Plaquemines Parish. In May 2018, the case was removed for a second time to the U.S. District Court. In May 2019, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be remanded to the state district court. The case has been effectively stayed pending the resolution of jurisdictional issues in separate, consolidated cases to which TGP is not a party; The Parish of Plaquemines, et al. vs. Chevron USA, Inc. et al. consolidated with The Parish of Cameron, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al. Those cases were removed to federal court and ordered to be remanded to the state district courts for Plaquemines and Cameron Parishes, respectively. The defendants to those consolidated cases pursued an appeal of the remand decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether there is federal officer jurisdiction. On October 17, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals ordered those consolidated cases to be remanded to the state district courts. At this time, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. On March 29, 2019, the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish (collectively, Orleans) filed a petition for damages in the state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana against SNG and 10 other energy companies alleging that the defendants’ operations in Orleans Parish violated the SLCRMA and Louisiana law, and caused substantial damage to the coastal waters and nearby lands. Orleans seeks, among other relief, unspecified money damages, attorney fees, interest, and payment of costs necessary to restore the allegedly affected areas. In April 2019, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In May 2019, Orleans moved to remand the case to the state district court. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court ordered the case to be stayed and administratively closed pending the resolution of issues in a separate case to which SNG is not a party; Parish of Cameron vs. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc. , pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; after which either party may move to re-open the case. Until these and other issues are determined, we are not able to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential liability, if any. We intend to vigorously defend this case. Products Pipeline Incident, Walnut Creek, California On November 20, 2020, SFPP identified an issue on its Line Section 16 (LS-16) which transports petroleum products in California from Concord to San Jose. We shut down the pipeline and notified the appropriate regulatory agencies of a “threatened release” of gasoline. We investigated the issue over the next several days and on November 24, 2020, identified a crack in the pipeline and notified the regulatory agencies of a “confirmed release.” The damaged section of the pipeline was removed and replaced, and the pipeline resumed operations on November 26, 2020. We reported the estimated volume of gasoline released to be 8.1 Bbl. On December 2, 2020, complaints of gasoline odors were reported along the LS-16 pipeline corridor in Walnut Creek. A unified response was implemented by us along with the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the California Fire Marshall, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. On December 8, 2020, we reported an updated estimated spill volume of up to 1,000 Bbl. On October 28, 2021, we were informed by the California Attorney General it was contemplating criminal charges against us asserting the November 2020 discharge of gasoline affected waters of the State of California, and there was a failure to make timely notices of this discharge to appropriate state agencies. On December 16, 2021, we entered into a plea agreement with the State of California to resolve misdemeanor charges of the unintentional, non-negligent discharge of gasoline resulting from the release and the claimed failure to provide timely notices of the discharge to appropriate state agencies. Under the plea agreement, SFPP plead no-contest to two misdemeanors and paid approximately $2.5 million in fines, penalties, restitution, environmental improvement project funding, and for enforcement training in the State of California, and was placed on informal, unsupervised probation for a term of 18 months. Since the November 2020 release, we have cooperated fully with federal and state agencies and have worked diligently to remediate the affected areas. We anticipate civil enforcement actions by federal and state agencies arising from the November 2020 release as well as ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, remediation under the oversight of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board until site conditions demonstrate no further actions are required. We do not anticipate the costs to resolve those enforcement matters, including the costs to monitor and further remediate the site, will have a material adverse impact to our business. General Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcomes, we believe that the resolution of the environmental matters set forth in this note, and other matters to which we and our subsidiaries are a party, will not have a material adverse effect on our business. As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we have accrued a total reserve for environmental liabilities in the amount of $227 million and $243 million, respectively. In addition, as of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we had receivables of $11 million and $12 million, respectively, recorded for expected cost recoveries that have been deemed probable. |
