Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | ' |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Bankruptcy matters |
On July 22, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), SemGroup, L.P., SemCrude, L.P. (“SemCrude”), the predecessor of Rose Rock, and Eaglwing, L.P. (“Eaglwing”) filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. While in bankruptcy, SemGroup, L.P. filed a plan of reorganization with the court, which was confirmed on October 28, 2009 (the “Plan of Reorganization”). The Plan of Reorganization determined, among other things, how pre-Petition Date obligations would be settled, the equity structure of the reorganized company upon emergence and the financing arrangements upon emergence. SemGroup, SemCrude, and Eaglwing emerged from bankruptcy protection on November 30, 2009 (the “Emergence Date”). |
| | | | | | |
(a) | Confirmation order appeal | | | | | |
Luke Oil appeal. On October 21, 2009, Luke Oil Company, C&S Oil/Cross Properties, Inc., Wayne Thomas Oil and Gas and William R. Earnhardt Company (collectively, “Luke Oil”) filed an objection to the Plan of Reorganization “to the extent that the Plan of Reorganization may alter, impair or otherwise adversely affect Luke Oil’s legal rights or other interests.” On October 28, 2009, the bankruptcy court overruled the Luke Oil objection and entered the confirmation order. On November 6, 2009, Luke Oil filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 23, 2009, Luke Oil’s appeal was docketed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. SemGroup filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as equitably moot. On May 21, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting SemGroup's motion to dismiss Luke Oil’s appeal of the confirmation order. On June 18, 2012, Luke Oil filed its Notice of Appeal, notifying the District Court and the parties to the lawsuit that it was appealing the decision of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 27, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion, and on September 18, 2013 issued a judgment, reversing the District Court’s dismissal of the confirmation order and remanding the case to the District Court for consideration on the merits of Luke Oil’s appeal of the confirmation order. On October 1, 2013, at the request of the parties, the District Court entered an order staying the case and referring it to a magistrate judge for mediation. On January 28, 2014, the parties reached agreement to settle all outstanding disputes. A settlement agreement was executed by the parties pursuant to which each party granted the other a release of claims and causes of action and on March 5, 2014 the appeal was dismissed. We are indemnified by SemGroup against any loss in this matter pursuant to the terms of the omnibus agreement with SemGroup. |
Claims reconciliation process |
A large number of parties have made claims against SemGroup for obligations alleged to have been incurred prior to the Petition Date. On September 15, 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an order estimating the contingent, unliquidated and disputed claims and authorizing distributions to holders of allowed claims. Pursuant to that order, SemGroup has begun making distributions to the claimants. SemGroup continues to attempt to settle unresolved claims. |
|
Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, SemGroup committed to settle all pre-petition claims by paying a specified amount of cash, issuing a specified number of warrants and issuing a specified number of shares of SemGroup Corporation common stock. The resolution of most of the outstanding claims will not impact the total amount of consideration SemGroup will give to the claimants; instead, the resolution of the claims will impact the relative share of the total consideration that each claimant receives. |
However, there is a specified group of claims for which SemGroup could be required to pay additional funds to settle. Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, SemGroup set aside a specified amount of restricted cash at the Emergence Date, which SemGroup expected to be sufficient to settle this group of claims. Since the Emergence Date, SemGroup has made significant progress in resolving these claims and continues to believe that the cash set aside at the Emergence Date will be sufficient to pay these claims. However, SemGroup has not yet reached a resolution of all of these claims and, if the total settlement amount of these claims exceeds the specified amount, SemGroup will be required to pay additional funds to these claimants and we could be required to share in this expense. We are indemnified by SemGroup against any loss in this matter pursuant to the terms of the omnibus agreement with SemGroup. |
Environmental |
We may, from time to time, experience leaks of petroleum products from our facilities and, as a result of which, we may incur remediation obligations or property damage claims. In addition, we are subject to numerous environmental regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the assessment of fines or penalties by regulatory authorities. |
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) initiated discussions during SemGroup’s bankruptcy proceeding regarding five of our sites in Kansas that KDHE believed, based on their historical use, may have soil or groundwater contamination in excess of state standards. KDHE sought our agreement to undertake assessments of these sites to determine whether they are contaminated. SemGroup entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order with KDHE to conduct environmental assessments on the sites and to pay KDHE’s costs associated with their oversight of this matter. SemGroup has conducted Phase II investigations at all sites. Three of the five sites have limited amounts of soil contamination that will be excavated and/or remediated on site. Three of the five sites appear to have ground water contamination that may require further delineation and/or on-going monitoring. Work plans have been submitted to, and approved by, the KDHE. SemGroup does not anticipate any penalties or fines for these historical sites. We are indemnified by SemGroup against any loss in this matter pursuant to the terms of the omnibus agreement with SemGroup. |
Blueknight claim |
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. (“Blueknight”), which was formerly a subsidiary of SemGroup, together with other entities related to Blueknight, entered into a Shared Services Agreement on April 7, 2009, with SemCrude and SemManagement, L.L.C. (which are currently subsidiaries of SemGroup). The services provided by SemCrude to Blueknight under this agreement included assisting Blueknight with movement of crude oil belonging to Blueknight’s customers and with the operation of Blueknight’s Oklahoma pipeline system and its Cushing, Oklahoma terminal. Under the subsequent amendments to the agreements beginning in May 2010, certain of these services were phased out and Blueknight began to perform all services necessary for the movement of its crude oil and the operation of its Cushing terminal without SemCrude's assistance. |
In a letter dated August 18, 2011, Blueknight claimed that SemCrude owes Blueknight approximately 141,000 barrels of crude oil. SemGroup responded to Blueknight’s letter denying their charges and requesting documentation from Blueknight of its claim. On February 14, 2012, after months of interaction between the parties through which Blueknight was requested to substantiate its claim, Blueknight filed suit against SemGroup and other related companies in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. On May 1, 2012, the case was transferred to Tulsa County, Oklahoma. On July 2, 2012, the Tulsa County District Court appointed a Special Master to review terminal operations accounting records and determine whether 141,000 barrels of crude oil owned by Blueknight is missing after three months of operations in April through June, 2010. On June 11, 2013, the Special Master’s Report was filed with the District Court finding a shortage in Blueknight’s Cushing terminal and Oklahoma pipeline system of 148,000 barrels. However, after a review of all records created during that three month time period, the Special Master was unable to determine how the shortage might have occurred and was unable to determine the ownership of the potential shortage. |
We are currently seeking discovery in the District Court of documentation and testimony on the potential cause and the impact, if any, of the shortage found by the Special Master. On February 20, 2014, the District Court issued an order denying all requests for summary judgment and ordering discovery to go forward. SemGroup will continue to defend its position; however, we cannot predict the outcome. We are indemnified by SemGroup against any loss in this matter pursuant to the terms of the omnibus agreement with SemGroup. |
Other matters |
We are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of our management, the ultimate resolution of these claims, legal actions and complaints, after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage and other arrangements, will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently uncertain and estimates of our consolidated liabilities may change materially as circumstances develop. |
Asset retirement obligations |
We may be subject to removal and restoration costs upon retirement of our facilities. However, we are unable to predict when, or if, our pipelines, storage tanks and related facilities would become completely obsolete and require decommissioning. Accordingly, we have not recorded a liability or corresponding asset, as both the amount and timing of such potential future costs are indeterminable. |
Purchase and sale commitments |
We routinely enter into agreements to purchase and sell petroleum products at specified future dates. We create a margin for these purchases by entering into various types of physical and financial sales and exchange transactions through which we seek to maintain a position that is substantially balanced between purchases on the one hand and sales and future delivery obligations on the other. We account for derivatives at fair value with the exception of commitments which have been designated as normal purchases and sales, for which we do not record assets or liabilities related to these agreements until the product is purchased or sold. At March 31, 2014, such commitments included the following (in thousands): |
|
| | | | | | |
| Volume | | Value |
(Barrels) |
Fixed price purchases | 100 | | | $ | 9,027 | |
|
Fixed price sales | 115 | | | $ | 11,525 | |
|
Floating price purchases | 11,593 | | | $ | 1,123,992 | |
|
Floating price sales | 12,006 | | | $ | 1,171,662 | |
|
Certain of the commitments shown in the table above relate to agreements to purchase product from a counterparty and to sell a similar amount of product (in a different location) to the same counterparty. Many of the commitments shown in the table above are cancellable by either party, as long as notice is given within the time frame specified in the agreement, generally 30 to 120 days. |
See Note 2 for commitments related to the White Cliffs Pipeline expansion. |