| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various lawsuits and other contingent matters. We establish accruals for specific legal matters when we determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Tesoro Earn-out Dispute On June 17, 2013, a wholly owned subsidiary of Par entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with Tesoro Corporation (“Tesoro,” which changed its name to Andeavor Corporation before being purchased by Marathon Petroleum Company in October 2018), pursuant to which the Par subsidiary purchased all of the issued and outstanding membership interests in Tesoro Hawaii, LLC. Tesoro Hawaii, LLC was initially renamed Hawaii Independent Energy, LLC, and subsequently renamed Par Hawaii Refining, LLC (“ PHR ”). The cash consideration for the acquisition was subject to an earn-out provision during the years 2014-2016, subject to, among other things, an annual earn-out cap of $20 million and an overall cap of $40 million . During 2016, we paid Tesoro a total of $16.8 million to settle the 2014 and 2015 earn-out periods. Tesoro disputed our calculation of the 2015 and 2016 earn-out amounts and asserted that it was entitled to an additional earn-out amount of $4.3 million for the 2015 earn-out period and a total earn-out amount of $8.3 million for the 2016 earn-out period. On March 22, 2018 , Tesoro agreed to settle the earn-out dispute and release and discharge any related claims in exchange for our payment of $10.5 million . United Steelworkers Union Dispute A portion of our employees at the Hawaii refinery are represented by the United Steelworkers Union (“USW”). On March 23, 2015, the union ratified a four -year extension of the collective bargaining agreement. On January 13, 2016, the USW filed a claim against PHR before the United States National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) alleging a refusal to bargain collectively and in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the NLRB deferred final determination on the USW charge to the grievance/arbitration process under the extant collective bargaining agreement. Arbitration was commenced and concluded on October 1, 2018, with the arbitrator taking the matter under advisement thereafter. In a decision dated November 27, 2018, the arbitrator denied the grievance without prejudice to USW's NLRB claim regarding retiree medical and short term disability benefits. PHR denies the USW’s allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself in connection with such claim in the grievance/arbitration process and any subsequent proceeding before the NLRB. Environmental Matters Like other petroleum refiners and exploration and production companies, our operations are subject to extensive and periodically-changing federal and state environmental regulations governing air emissions, wastewater discharges, and solid and hazardous waste management activities. Many of these regulations are becoming increasingly stringent and the cost of compliance can be expected to increase over time. Periodically, we receive communications from various federal, state, and local governmental authorities asserting violations of environmental laws and/or regulations. These governmental entities may also propose or assess fines or require corrective actions for these asserted violations. We intend to respond in a timely manner to all such communications and to take appropriate corrective action. Except as disclosed below, we do not anticipate that any such matters currently asserted will have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Wyoming Refinery Our Wyoming refinery is subject to a number of consent decrees, orders, and settlement agreements involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“ EPA ”) and/or the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, some of which date back to the late 1970s and several of which remain in effect, requiring further actions at the Wyoming refinery. The largest cost component arising from these various decrees relates to the investigation, monitoring, and remediation of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination associated with the facility’s historic operations. Investigative work by Wyoming Refining and negotiations with the relevant agencies as to remedial approaches remain ongoing on a number of aspects of the contamination, meaning that investigation, monitoring, and remediation costs are not reasonably estimable for some elements of these efforts. As of March 31, 2019 , we have accrued $17.1 million for the well-understood components of these efforts based on current information, approximately one-third of which we expect to incur in the next five years and the remainder to be incurred over approximately 30 years . Additionally, we believe the Wyoming refinery will need to modify or close a series of wastewater impoundments in the next several years and replace those impoundments with a new wastewater treatment system. Based on current information, reasonable estimates we have received suggest costs of approximately $11.6 million to design and construct a new wastewater treatment system. Finally, among the various historic consent decrees, orders, and settlement agreements into which Hermes Consolidated LLC, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Wyoming Pipeline Company (collectively, “WRC” or “Wyoming Refining”) have entered, there are several penalty orders associated with exceedances of permitted limits by the Wyoming refinery’s wastewater discharges. Although the frequency of these exceedances has declined over time, Wyoming Refining may become subject to new penalty enforcement action in the next several years, which could involve penalties in excess of $100,000 . Regulation of Greenhouse Gases The EPA regulates greenhouse gases (“GHG”) under the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”). New construction or material expansions that meet certain GHG emissions thresholds will likely require that, among other things, a GHG permit be issued in accordance with the federal CAA regulations and we will be required, in connection with such permitting, to undertake a technology review to determine appropriate controls to be implemented with the project in order to reduce GHG emissions. Furthermore, the EPA is currently developing refinery-specific GHG regulations and performance standards that are expected to impose GHG emission limits and/or technology requirements. These control requirements may affect a wide range of refinery operations. Any such controls could result in material increased compliance costs, additional operating restrictions for our business, and an increase in the cost of the products we produce, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On September 29, 2015, the EPA announced a final rule updating standards that control toxic air emissions from petroleum refineries, addressing, among other things, flaring operations, fenceline air quality monitoring, and additional emission reductions from storage tanks and delayed coking units. Compliance with this rule has not had a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows to date. In 2007, the State of Hawaii passed Act 234, which required that GHG emissions be rolled back on a statewide basis to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Although delayed, the Hawaii Department of Health has issued regulations that would require each major facility to reduce CO 2 emissions by 16% by 2020 relative to a calendar year 2010 baseline (the first year in which GHG emissions were reported to the EPA under 40 CFR Part 98). Those rules are pending final approval by the Hawaii State Government. The Hawaii refinery’s capacity to reduce fuel use and GHG emissions is limited. However, the state’s pending regulation allows, and the Hawaii refinery expects to be able to demonstrate, that additional reductions are not cost-effective or necessary in light of the state’s current GHG inventory and future year projections. The pending regulation allows for “partnering” with other facilities (principally power plants) that have already dramatically reduced greenhouse emissions or are on schedule to reduce CO 2 emissions in order to comply with the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards. Fuel Standards In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (the “EISA”) which, among other things, set a target fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks in the U.S. by model year 2020 and contained an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (the “RFS”). In August 2012, the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) jointly adopted regulations that establish an average industry fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025. On August 8, 2018, the EPA and NHTSA jointly proposed to revise existing fuel economy standards for model years 2021-2025 and to set standards for 2026 for the first time. The agencies have not yet issued a final rule, but they are expected to do so in 2019. Although the revised fuel economy standards are expected to be less stringent than the initial standards for model years 2021-2025, it is uncertain whether the revised standards will increase year over year. Higher fuel economy standards have the potential to reduce demand for our refined transportation fuel products. Under EISA, the RFS requires an increasing amount of renewable fuel to be blended into the nation’s transportation fuel supply, up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. In the near term, the RFS will be satisfied primarily with fuel ethanol blended into gasoline. We, and other refiners subject to the RFS, may meet the RFS requirements by blending the necessary volumes of renewable fuels produced by us or purchased from third parties. To the extent that refiners will not or cannot blend renewable fuels into the products they produce in the quantities required to satisfy their obligations under the RFS program, those refiners must purchase renewable credits, referred to as RINs, to maintain compliance. To the extent that we exceed the minimum volumetric requirements for blending of renewable fuels, we generate our own RINs for which we have the option of retaining these self-generated RINs for current or future RFS compliance or selling those RINs on the open market. The RFS may present production and logistics challenges for both the renewable fuels and petroleum refining and marketing industries in that we may have to enter into arrangements with other parties or purchase D3 waivers from the EPA to meet our obligations to use advanced biofuels, including biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuel, with potentially uncertain supplies of these new fuels. The eastern location of our co-located Hawaii refinery and our Wyoming refinery were each granted a one-year small refinery exemption for the year 2017 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). In October 2010, the EPA issued a partial waiver decision under the federal CAA to allow for an increase in the amount of ethanol permitted to be blended into gasoline from 10% (“E10”) to 15% (“E15”) for 2007 and newer light duty motor vehicles. In January 2011, the EPA issued a second waiver for the use of E15 in vehicles model years 2001-2006. In 2019, EPA is expected to conduct a rulemaking to allow year-round sales of E15. There are numerous issues, including state and federal regulatory issues, that need to be addressed before E15 can be marketed on a large scale for use in traditional gasoline engines; however, increased renewable fuel in the nation's transportation fuel supply could reduce demand for our refined products. In March 2014, the EPA published a final Tier 3 gasoline standard that requires, among other things, that gasoline contain no more than 10 parts per million (“ppm”) sulfur on an annual average basis and no more than 80 ppm sulfur on a per-gallon basis. The standard also lowers the allowable benzene, aromatics, and olefins content of gasoline. The effective date for the new standard was January 1, 2017, however, approved small volume refineries have until January 1, 2020 to meet the standard. The eastern location of our co-located Hawaii refinery was required to comply with Tier 3 gasoline standards within 30 months of June 21, 2016, the date our Hawaii refinery was disqualified from small volume refinery status, and is currently compliant. On March 19, 2015, the EPA confirmed the small refinery status of our Wyoming refinery. The Par East facility of our Hawaii refinery, our Wyoming refinery, and our Washington refinery, acquired in January 2019, were all granted small refinery status by the EPA for 2017. The EPA is expected to make small refinery status determinations for 2018 in the second quarter of 2019. Beginning on June 30, 2014, new sulfur standards for fuel oil used by marine vessels operating within 200 miles of the U.S. coastline (which includes the entire Hawaiian Island chain) was lowered from 10,000 ppm (1%) to 1,000 ppm (0.1%). The sulfur standards began at the Hawaii refinery and were phased in so that by January 1, 2015, they were to be fully aligned with the International Marine Organization (“IMO”) standards and deadline. The more stringent standards apply universally to both U.S. and foreign-flagged ships. Although the marine fuel regulations provided vessel operators with a few compliance options such as installation of on-board pollution controls and demonstration unavailability, many vessel operators will be forced to switch to a distillate fuel while operating within the Emission Control Area (“ECA”). Beyond the 200 mile ECA, large ocean vessels are still allowed to burn marine fuel with up to 3.5% sulfur. Our Hawaii refinery is capable of producing the 1% sulfur residual fuel oil that was previously required within the ECA. Although our Hawaii refinery remains in a position to supply vessels traveling to and through Hawaii, the market for 0.1% sulfur distillate fuel and 3.5% sulfur residual fuel is much more competitive. In addition to U.S. fuels requirements, the IMO has also adopted newer standards that further reduce the global limit on sulfur content in maritime fuels to 0.5% beginning in 2020 (“IMO 2020”). Like the rest of the refining industry, we are focused on meeting these standards and may incur costs in producing lower-sulfur fuels. There will be compliance costs and uncertainties regarding how we will comply with the various requirements contained in the EISA, RFS, IMO 2020, and other fuel-related regulations. We may experience a decrease in demand for refined petroleum products due to an increase in combined fleet mileage or due to refined petroleum products being replaced by renewable fuels. Environmental Agreement On September 25, 2013 , Par Petroleum, LLC (formerly Hawaii Pacific Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Par created for purposes of the PHR acquisition), Tesoro, and PHR entered into an Environmental Agreement (“Environmental Agreement”) that allocated responsibility for known and contingent environmental liabilities related to the acquisition of PHR , including the Consent Decree as described below. Consent Decree On July 18, 2016, PHR and subsidiaries of Tesoro entered into a consent decree with the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and other state governmental authorities concerning alleged violations of the federal CAA related to the ownership and operation of multiple facilities owned or formerly owned by Tesoro and its affiliates (“Consent Decree”), including the Par East facility of our Hawaii refinery. As a result of the Consent Decree, PHR expanded its previously-announced 2016 Hawaii refinery turnaround to undertake additional capital improvements to reduce emissions of air pollutants and to provide for certain nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emission controls and monitoring required by the Consent Decree. Although the turnaround was completed during the third quarter of 2016, work related to the Consent Decree is ongoing. This work subjects us to risks associated with engineering, procurement, and construction of improvements and repairs to our facilities and related penalties and fines to the extent applicable deadlines under the Consent Decree are not satisfied, as well as risks related to the performance of equipment required by, or affected by, the Consent Decree. Each of these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Tesoro is responsible under the Environmental Agreement for directly paying, or reimbursing PHR, for all reasonable third-party capital expenditures incurred pursuant to the Consent Decree to the extent related to acts or omissions prior to the date of the closing of the PHR acquisition. Tesoro is obligated to pay all applicable fines and penalties related to the Consent Decree. Through March 31, 2019 , Tesoro has reimbursed us for $12.2 million of our total capital expenditures incurred in connection with the Consent Decree. As of March 31, 2019 , all reimbursable capital expenditures incurred pursuant to the Consent Decree were collected. Net capital expenditures and reimbursements related to the Consent Decree for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 are presented within Capital expenditures on our condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the related periods. Indemnification In addition to its obligation to reimburse us for capital expenditures incurred pursuant to the Consent Decree, Tesoro agreed to indemnify us for claims and losses arising out of related breaches of Tesoro’s representations, warranties, and covenants in the Environmental Agreement, certain defined “corrective actions” relating to pre-existing environmental conditions, third-party claims arising under environmental laws for personal injury or property damage arising out of or relating to releases of hazardous materials that occurred prior to the date of the closing of the PHR acquisition, any fine, penalty, or other cost assessed by a governmental authority in connection with violations of environmental laws by PHR prior to the date of the closing of the PHR acquisition, certain groundwater remediation work, fines, or penalties imposed on PHR by the Consent Decree related to acts or omissions of Tesoro prior to the date of the closing of the PHR acquisition, and claims and losses related to the Pearl City Superfund Site. Tesoro’s indemnification obligations are subject to certain limitations as set forth in the Environmental Agreement. These limitations include a deductible of $1 million and a cap of $15 million for certain of Tesoro’s indemnification obligations related to certain pre-existing conditions, as well as certain restrictions regarding the time limits for submitting notice and supporting documentation for remediation actions. Recovery Trusts We emerged from the reorganization of Delta Petroleum Corporation (“Delta”) on August 31, 2012 (“Emergence Date”), when the plan of reorganization (“Plan”) was consummated. On the Emergence Date, we formed the Delta Petroleum General Recovery Trust (“General Trust”). The General Trust was formed to pursue certain litigation against third parties, including preference actions, fraudulent transfer and conveyance actions, rights of setoff and other claims, or causes of action under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other claims and potential claims that Delta and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Debtors”) hold against third parties. On February 27, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court entered its final decree closing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Delta and the other Debtors, discharging the trustee for the General Trust, and finding that all assets of the General Trust were resolved, abandoned, or liquidated and have been distributed in accordance with the requirements of the Plan. In addition, the final decree required the Company or the General Trust, as applicable, to maintain the current accruals owed on account of the remaining claims of the U.S. Government and Noble Energy, Inc. As of March 31, 2019 , two related claims totaling approximately $22.4 million remained to be resolved and we have accrued approximately $0.5 million representing the estimated value of claims remaining to be settled which are deemed probable and estimable at period end. One of the two remaining claims was filed by the U.S. Government for approximately $22.4 million relating to ongoing litigation concerning a plugging and abandonment obligation in Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Lease OCS-P 0320, comprising part of the Sword Unit in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. The second unliquidated claim, which is related to the same plugging and abandonment obligation, was filed by Noble Energy Inc., the operator and majority interest owner of the Sword Unit. We believe the probability of issuing stock to satisfy the full claim amount is remote, as the obligations upon which such proof of claim is asserted are joint and several among all working interest owners and Delta, our predecessor, only owned an approximate 3.4% aggregate working interest in the unit. The settlement of claims is subject to ongoing litigation and we are unable to predict with certainty how many shares will be required to satisfy all claims. Pursuant to the Plan, allowed claims were settled at a ratio of 54.4 shares per $1,000 of claim. |
