COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Claims and Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various claims and legal proceedings, some of which are covered by insurance. We are generally unable to predict the timing or outcome of these claims and proceedings. Based upon our evaluation of existing claims and proceedings and the probability of losses relating to such contingencies, we have accrued certain amounts relating to such claims and proceedings, none of which are considered material. Pennsauken Allisions . Our terminal located in Pennsauken, New Jersey suffered two allisions in the second half of 2014. The first occurred on August 5, 2014, when a vessel allided with our terminal’s ship dock. Reconstruction of the dock has been completed and service has commenced. The aggregate cost to reconstruct the dock was approximately $8.0 million . Security for our claim has been provided by the vessel owner’s insurers, in the amount of $19.0 million , reserving all of their defenses. We have commenced litigation against the vessel and its owner. They have stipulated to liability, so the only issue is the amount of Buckeye’s damages. The second incident occurred on October 5, 2014, when a tug and barge struck and damaged a second dock operated at the Pennsauken facility. The tug and barge owners have commenced proceedings to limit their liability to $1.0 million and $5.0 million , respectively. We have filed claims in the limitation proceedings for the reconstruction of the second dock and response costs totaling approximately $7.0 million . We also are suffering loss-of-use damages as a result of the above allisions as the two incidents together have impacted the ability of vessels to call at the terminal. In order to mitigate these business losses, we have made modifications to two other berths at a cost of $1.3 million . Recovery for both the mitigation costs and business losses is being sought jointly from all of the respective responsible parties. Investigation of the incidents as well as our rights to recover our losses is ongoing. We are insured for loss of use, subject to a 30 day deductible. Our insurers are involved in the recovery efforts. As of September 30, 2015 we had $1.3 million included in “Other non-current assets” in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet, representing expected reimbursement from third parties for mitigation costs deemed probable for recovery. BORCO Jetty . On May 25, 2012, a ship, Cape Bari, allided with a jetty at our BORCO facility while berthing, causing damage to portions of the jetty. Buckeye has insurance to cover this loss, subject to a $5.0 million deductible. On May 26, 2012, we commenced legal proceedings in The Bahamas against the vessel’s owner and the vessel to obtain security for the cost of repairs and other losses incurred as a result of the incident. Full security for our claim has been provided by the vessel owner’s insurers, reserving all of their defenses. We also have notified the customer on whose behalf the vessel was at the BORCO facility that we intend to hold them responsible for all damages and losses resulting from the incident pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the parties. Any disputes between us and our customer on this matter are subject to arbitration in New York, New York, and arbitration has been commenced. The vessel owner has claimed that it is entitled to limit its liability to $17.0 million , but we are contesting the right of the vessel owner to such limitation. The Bahamas court of first instance denied the vessel owner the right to limit its liability for the incident, leaving the vessel owner responsible for all provable damages. The vessel owner appealed, and The Bahamas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the vessel owner may limit its liability. Our application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision to the Privy Council was granted, and the appeal has been filed. We can express no view on whether The Bahamas Court of Appeals decision ultimately will be affirmed or reversed. We experienced no material interruption of service at the BORCO facility as a result of the incident, and the repairs and reconstruction of the damaged sections are complete. The aggregate cost to repair and reconstruct the damaged portions of the jetty and pursue recovery in court has been $23.0 million . We recorded a loss on disposal due to the assets destroyed in the incident and other related costs incurred; however, since we believe recovery of our losses is probable, we recorded a corresponding receivable. As of September 30, 2015 , we had a $6.4 million receivable included in “Other non-current assets” in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet, representing reimbursement of the deductible and other third party expenses. Additionally, we have received insurance reimbursements of $16.0 million , and to the extent the aggregate proceeds from the recovery of our losses is in excess of the carrying value of the destroyed assets or other costs incurred, we will recognize a gain when such proceeds are received and are not refundable. Our insurers have paid most of the claim and are now parties in The Bahamas litigation. As of September 30, 2015 , no gain had been recognized; however, we recorded a $14.1 million deferred gain in “Accrued and other current liabilities” in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet, representing excess proceeds received over the loss on disposal and other costs incurred. On May 12, 2014, the vessel owner filed a third-party complaint against BORCO and a BORCO subsidiary, Borco Towing Company Limited, alleging negligence by the pilots and tugs that assisted the Cape Bari berth. We have investigated these allegations and believe that we have defenses and intend to defend ourselves and pursue our claims against the vessel owner. BORCO and Borco Towing Company Limited are insured for the alleged liability, subject to an applicable deductible, and the liability insurers are participating in the defense. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Proceedings FERC Docket No. OR12-28-000 — Airlines Complaint against Buckeye Pipe Line Company, L.P. (“BPLC”) New York City Jet Fuel Rates . On September 20, 2012, a complaint was filed with FERC by Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, United/Continental Air Lines, and US Airways challenging BPLC’s rates for transportation of jet fuel from New Jersey to three New York City airports. The complaint was not directed at BPLC’s rates for service to other destinations and does not involve pipeline systems and terminals owned by Buckeye’s other operating subsidiaries. The complaint challenges these jet fuel transportation rates as generating revenues in excess of costs and thus being “unjust and unreasonable” under the Interstate Commerce Act. On October 10, 2012, BPLC filed its answer to the complaint, contending that the airlines’ allegations are based on inappropriate adjustments to the pipeline’s costs and revenues, and that, in any event, any revenue recovery by BPLC in excess of costs would be irrelevant because BPLC’s rates are set under a FERC-approved program that ties rates to competitive levels. BPLC also sought dismissal of the complaint to the extent it seeks to challenge the portion of BPLC’s rates that were deemed just and reasonable, or “grandfathered,” under Section 1803 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. BPLC further contested the airlines’ ability to seek relief as to past charges where the rates are lawful under BPLC’s FERC-approved rate program. On October 25, 2012, the complainants filed their answer to BPLC’s motion to dismiss and answer. On November 9, 2012, BPLC filed a response addressing newly raised arguments in the complainants’ October 25 th answer. On February 22, 2013, FERC issued an order setting the airline complaint in Docket (“Dkt.”) No. OR12-28-000 for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance and setting the dispute for settlement procedures before a settlement judge. If FERC were to find these challenged rates to be in excess of costs and not otherwise protected by law, it could order BPLC to reduce these rates prospectively and could order repayment to the complaining airlines of any past charges found to be in excess of just and reasonable levels for up to two years prior to the filing date of the complaint. BPLC intends to vigorously defend its rates. On March 8, 2013, an order was issued consolidating, for settlement purposes, this complaint proceeding with the proceeding regarding BPLC’s application for market-based rates in the New York City market in Dkt. No. OR13-3-000 (discussed below), and settlement discussions under the supervision of the FERC settlement judge continued until April 2014. On April 1, 2014, the FERC settlement judge issued a status report stating that the parties had been unable to reach a settlement, and recommending that both Dkt. Nos. OR12-28-000 and OR13-3-000 be set for hearing. The settlement judge further recommended that settlement procedures under the supervision of the settlement judge continue concurrently because the parties hope to continue settlement talks after the commencement of litigation. On April 17, 2014, the FERC Chief Administrative Law Judge (the “Chief ALJ”) ruled in favor of separate proceedings and of continuing the existing settlement procedures concurrently with litigation. In May 2014, a procedural schedule was established for this matter, providing for a hearing in March 2015, which occurred, and an initial decision by August 2015. The hearing was concluded on April 1, 2015. As a result of developments in ongoing settlement talks regarding Dkt. Nos. OR12-28-000, OR13-3-000 (discussed below) and OR 14-41-000 (discussed below), we recorded an accrual and a corresponding reduction in revenue in the amount of $40.0 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2014 in our Pipelines & Terminals segment. On June 19, 2015, BPLC and the airlines submitted an Offer of Settlement at the FERC (the “Settlement”) to resolve the complaints set for hearing in Dkt. Nos. OR12-28-000, et al. and OR14-41-000, as well as BPLC’s application in Dkt. No. OR13-3-000. Under the terms of the Settlement, BPLC agreed to reduce its jet fuel rates prospectively, to make settlement payments to the airlines, to install facilities to increase the flexibility and capacity of its system in shipping jet fuel to John F. Kennedy International Airport, and to resolve its application in Dkt. No. OR13-3-000 as described further below. As a result of submission of the Settlement, we recorded an additional accrual and corresponding reduction in revenue in the amount of $13.5 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2015 in our Pipelines & Terminals segment, which, together with the previously recorded $40.0 million reduction in revenue, represents anticipated settlement payments and other expenses associated with the Settlement. In the third quarter of 2015, we recorded an additional litigation accrual adjustment of $1.7 million as a reduction of revenue. On September 29, 2015, the FERC approved the Settlement without modification. On October 1, 2015, BPLC filed a tariff to implement the terms of the Settlement, including the agreed-upon reductions in jet fuel rates effective November 1, 2015 (the “Settlement Tariff”). On October 16, 2015, a jet fuel marketer and three airlines not parties to the Settlement protested the tariff, alleging that certain provisions of an incentive rate program provided for in the Settlement are unduly discriminatory (the “Protest”). On October 29, 2015, the jet fuel marketer and three airlines sought late intervention and rehearing at the FERC (the “Rehearing Request”) to challenge FERC’s approval of the Settlement alleging, on a basis similar to the Protest, that certain provisions of the Settlement’s incentive rate program are unduly discriminatory. On October 30, 2015, the FERC issued an order rejecting the Protest on the merits and accepting the Settlement Tariff, permitting the reduced rates to go into effect on November 1, 2015. Buckeye Pipe Line believes that the incentive rate program established under the settlement is reasonable, a position reflected in the FERC’s October 30th order, and intends to vigorously contest the Rehearing Request. FERC Docket No. OR14-41-000 — American Airlines Complaint against BPLC New York City Jet Fuel Rates . On September 17, 2014, a complaint was filed with FERC by American Airlines. It is similar to the Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 complaint (see above) in that it challenges BPLC’s rates for transportation of jet fuel from New Jersey to the three New York City airports, is not directed at BPLC’s rates for service to other destinations, and does not involve pipeline systems and terminals owned by Buckeye’s other operating subsidiaries. On October 7, 2014, BPLC filed its answer to the complaint, contesting the airline’s allegations and presenting certain legal defenses to relief sought by the airline. On December 18, 2014, FERC issued an order setting the complaint for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance and setting the dispute for settlement procedures before a settlement judge. As noted above, the Settlement to resolve this complaint was approved by the FERC on September 29, 2015. FERC Docket No. OR13-3-000 — BPLC’s Market-Based Rate Application . On October 15, 2012, BPLC filed an application with FERC seeking authority to charge market-based rates for deliveries of liquid petroleum products to the New York City-area market (the “Application”). In the Application, BPLC seeks to charge market-based rates from its three origin points in northeastern New Jersey to its five destinations on its Long Island System, including deliveries of jet fuel to the Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports. The jet fuel rates were also the subject of the airlines’ Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 complaint discussed above. On December 14, 2012, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, United/Continental Air Lines, and US Airways filed a joint intervention and protest challenging the Application and requesting its rejection. On January 14, 2013, BPLC filed its answer to the protest and requested summary disposition as to those non-jet-fuel rates that were not challenged in the protest. On January 29, 2013, the protestants responded to BPLC’s answer, and on February 13, 2013, BPLC filed a further answer to the protestants’ January 29, 2013 pleading. On February 28, 2013, FERC issued an order setting the Application for hearing, holding the hearing in abeyance and setting the dispute for settlement procedures before a settlement judge. As discussed above, the Application was consolidated with the complaint proceeding in Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 for settlement purposes, and the settlement judge reported to the FERC and the Chief ALJ that the Application should be set for hearing. The settlement judge also recommended that settlement procedures under the supervision of the settlement judge continue concurrently because the parties hope to continue settlement talks after the commencement of litigation. As noted above, the FERC Chief ALJ ruled that Dkt. No. OR13-3-000 would proceed separately from the Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 proceeding and that the existing settlement procedures would continue concurrently with litigation. As noted above, BPLC and the airlines submitted an Offer of Settlement to the FERC to resolve the airlines’ objections to the Application. Under the terms of the Settlement, and in connection with the resolution of challenges to the jet fuel rates by the airlines in the complaint dockets discussed separately above, Buckeye agreed, inter alia , to withdraw the portions of the Application addressing transportation of jet fuel within the New York City market, including transportation of jet fuel to the three airports, while remaining free to pursue market-based rates for transportation of other refined petroleum products to other destinations within the New York City market. As noted above, the Settlement was approved by the FERC on September 29, 2015. On October 8, 2015, the Chief ALJ issued an order continuing suspension of the procedural schedule until December 8, 2015 to permit discussions between Buckeye and FERC Trial Staff regarding procedural steps to recommend regarding the proceeding. Environmental Contingencies We recorded operating expenses, net of insurance recoveries, of $1.7 million and $2.0 million during the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively, related to environmental remediation liabilities unrelated to claims and legal proceedings. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , we recorded operating expenses, net of recoveries, of $4.5 million and $4.2 million , respectively, related to environmental remediation liabilities unrelated to claims and legal proceedings. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , we recorded environmental remediation liabilities of $48.4 million and $52.3 million , respectively. Costs incurred may be in excess of our estimate, which may have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , we had $12.9 million and $13.6 million , respectively, of receivables related to these environmental remediation liabilities covered by insurance or third party claims. |