Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Expenditures related to leases for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were approximately $132 million, $102 million and $60 million, respectively. We have commitments, some of which are leases, related to real property, equipment and operating facilities. We also incur costs associated with leased land, rights-of-way, permits and regulatory fees. Future non-cancelable commitments related to these items at December 31, 2013, are summarized below (in millions):

	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		Thereafter		Total
Leases (1)	$	152	$	132	$	124	$	103	$	78	$	386	$	975
Other commitments (2)	38		32		29		25		16		42		182
Total	$	190	$	164	$	153	$	128	$	94	$	428	$	1,157

(1) Includes capital and operating leases as defined by the FASB guidance.

(2) Primarily includes third-party storage and transportation agreements and pipeline throughput agreements.

Litigation

General. In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings. To the extent we are able to assess the likelihood of a negative outcome for these proceedings, our assessments of such likelihood range from remote to probable. If we determine that a negative outcome is probable and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable, we accrue the estimated amount. We do not believe that the outcome of these legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Although we believe that our operations are presently in material compliance with applicable requirements, as we acquire and incorporate additional assets it is possible that the EPA or other governmental entities may seek to impose fines, penalties or performance obligations on us (or on a portion of our operations) as a result of any past noncompliance whether such noncompliance initially developed before or after our acquisition.

Pemex Exploración y Producción v. Big Star Gathering Ltd L.L.P. et al. In two cases filed in the Texas Southern District Court in May 2011 and April 2012, Pemex Exploración y Producción (“PEP”) alleges that certain parties stole condensate from pipelines and gathering stations and conspired with U.S. companies (primarily in Texas) to import and market the stolen condensate. PEP does not allege that Plains was part of any conspiracy, but that it dealt in the condensate only after it had been obtained by others and resold to Plains Marketing, L.P. PEP seeks actual damages, attorney’s fees, and statutory penalties from Plains Marketing, L.P. In February 2013, the Court granted Plains Marketing, L.P.’s motion to be dismissed from the April 2012 lawsuit. In October 2013, the Court issued an order in the May 2011 lawsuit granting summary judgment in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P. with respect to all of PEP’s remaining claims against Plains Marketing, L.P. In February 2014, the Court affirmed its order granting summary judgment in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P., denied PEP’s motion for reconsideration, and issued a judgment dismissing all claims against Plains. PEP has the right to appeal such rulings.

PNG Merger. Purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of PNG unitholders challenging the PNG Merger. Two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption In re PAA Natural Gas Storage, Limited Partnership Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8908-VCL (which we refer to as the Consolidated Delaware Action). Two lawsuits were filed in Texas state court in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption Vicars v. PNGS GP, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2013-52687 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris County) (which we refer to as the Consolidated Texas Action). Four lawsuits were filed in Texas federal court in October 2013 and were consolidated under the caption The DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP., et al., 4:13-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex.) (which we refer to as the Consolidated Federal Action).

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action generally allege that (i) the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to PNG unitholders by allegedly approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process and by agreeing to certain deal protection devices; and (ii) the PNG Merger unfairly benefits certain members of PNG’s board of directors. Plaintiffs also allege that PNG’s general partner, PNG and other of our affiliates aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas Action generally allege that (i) the individual defendants breached their duties owed to PNG’s unitholders under PNG’s partnership agreement as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging in self-dealing; and (ii) PNG’s general partner, PNG and other of our affiliates have aided and abetted the defendant directors for the purpose of advancing their own interests and/or assisting such directors in connection with their breaches of their respective duties. In addition, the Consolidated Texas Action includes purported derivative claims on behalf of PNG based on the alleged breaches of duties by the individual defendants.

In February 2014, the Consolidated Federal Action was dismissed. Plaintiffs in the remaining actions generally seek, among other relief, to enjoin the transaction, rescission in the event the transaction is consummated, an order directing defendants to account to plaintiff and other members of the putative class for all damages caused by their breaches, money damages and an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. We cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. We intend to defend vigorously against these and any other actions. See Note 10 for a description of the PNG Merger.

Environmental

General. Although we believe that our efforts to enhance our leak prevention and detection capabilities have produced positive results, we have experienced (and likely will experience future) releases of hydrocarbon products into the environment from our pipeline and storage operations. These releases can result from unpredictable man-made or natural forces and may reach surface water bodies, groundwater aquifers or other sensitive environments. Whether current or past, damages and liabilities associated with any such releases from our assets may substantially affect our business.

We record environmental liabilities when environmental assessments and/or remedial efforts are probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. Generally, our recording of these accruals coincides with our completion of a feasibility study or our commitment to a formal plan of action. We do not discount our environmental remediation liabilities to present value. We also record environmental liabilities assumed in business combinations based on the estimated fair value of the environmental obligations caused by past operations of the acquired company. We record receivables for amounts recoverable from insurance or from third parties under indemnification agreements in the period that we determine the costs are probable of recovery.

Environmental expenditures that pertain to current operations or to future revenues are expensed or capitalized consistent with our capitalization policy for property and equipment. Expenditures that result from the remediation of an existing condition caused by past operations and that do not contribute to current or future profitability are expensed.

At December 31, 2013, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled approximately $93 million, of which approximately $11 million was classified as short-term and approximately $82 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2012, our reserve for environmental liabilities totaled approximately $96 million, of which approximately $13 million was classified as short-term and approximately $83 million was classified as long-term. The short- and long-term environmental liabilities referenced above are reflected in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits,” respectively, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had recorded receivables totaling approximately $10 million and $42 million, respectively, for amounts probable of recovery under insurance and from third parties under indemnification agreements, which are predominantly reflected in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In some cases, the actual cash expenditures may not occur for three to five years. Our estimates used in these reserves are based on information currently available to us and our assessment of the ultimate outcome. Among the many uncertainties that impact our estimates are the necessary regulatory approvals for, and potential modification of, our remediation plans, the limited amount of data available upon initial assessment of the impact of soil or water contamination, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to additional liabilities. Therefore, although we believe that the reserve is adequate, costs incurred may be in excess of the reserve and may potentially have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Rainbow Pipeline Release. During April 2011, we experienced a crude oil release of approximately 28,000 barrels of crude oil on a remote section of our Rainbow Pipeline located in Alberta, Canada. Since the release and through December 31, 2013, we spent approximately $70 million, before insurance recoveries, in connection with site clean-up, reclamation and remediation activities, and as of December 31, 2013, we did not have any material outstanding liabilities or insurance receivables relating to this release. On February 26, 2013, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) issued a report detailing four enforcement actions against Plains Midstream Canada ULC (“PMC”) for failure to comply with certain regulatory requirements in connection with the release, including requirements related to operations and maintenance procedures, leak detection and response, backfill and compaction procedures and emergency response plan testing. PMC is in the process of taking appropriate actions necessary to respond to and comply with the enforcement actions set forth in the report, including the implementation of additional risk assessment procedures and the taking of other actions designed to minimize the risk that similar incidents occur in the future and enhance the effectiveness of PMC’s response to any such future incidents. In addition, on April 23, 2013, the Alberta Crown Prosecutor filed civil charges under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act against PMC relating to the release. To date, PMC has not been assessed any fines or penalties related to this release; however, such fines or penalties may be assessed in the future and are not expected to be material.

Rangeland Pipeline Release. During June 2012, we experienced a crude oil release on a section of our Rangeland Pipeline located near Sundre, Alberta, Canada. Approximately 3,000 barrels were released into the Red Deer River and were contained downstream in the Gleniffer Reservoir. Remediation activities in the reservoir area were completed by June 30, 2012, remediation of the remaining impacted areas of government-owned lands was completed by September 30, 2012 and interim closure, in respect of those lands, was received from the applicable regulatory agencies. Monitoring will continue into 2014, and a long-term monitoring plan has been developed and implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements. Through December 31, 2013, we spent approximately $46 million, before insurance recoveries, in connection with site clean-up, reclamation and remediation activities. This release is currently under investigation by the AER, which also intends to perform an audit of PMC’s operations. Although the AER’s final investigation is not complete, on July 4, 2013, the AER issued four enforcement actions against PMC citing failure to inspect water crossings, failure to complete an engineering assessment to determine suitability of continued operation of the Rangeland Pipeline, failure to maintain updated emergency response plans, and failure to conduct regular public awareness programs. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed against PMC with respect to this release; however, it is possible that fines or penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future and are not expected to be material.

Bay Springs Pipeline Release During February 2013, we experienced a crude oil release of approximately 120 barrels on a portion of one of our pipelines near Bay Springs, Mississippi. Most of the released oil was contained within our pipeline right of way, but some of the released oil entered a nearby waterway where it was contained with booms. The EPA has issued an administrative order requiring us to take various actions in response to the release, including remediation, reporting and other actions, and we may be subjected to a civil penalty. The aggregate cost to clean up and remediate the site was approximately $6 million, which has been recognized in “Field operating costs” on our Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Kemp River Pipeline Release. During May and June 2013, two separate releases were discovered on our Kemp River pipeline in Northern Alberta, Canada that, in the aggregate, resulted in the release of approximately 700 barrels of condensate and light crude oil. Clean-up and remediation activities are being conducted in cooperation with the applicable regulatory agencies. We estimate that the aggregate clean-up and remediation costs associated with these releases will be approximately $15 million which we have recognized in “Field operating costs” on our Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Environmental Remediation

We currently own or lease, and in the past have owned and leased, properties where hazardous liquids, including hydrocarbons, are or have been handled. These properties and the hazardous liquids or associated wastes disposed thereon may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and state and Canadian federal and provincial laws and regulations. Under such laws and regulations, we could be required to remove or remediate hazardous liquids or associated wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) and to clean up contaminated property (including contaminated groundwater).

We maintain insurance of various types with varying levels of coverage that we consider adequate under the circumstances to cover our operations and properties. The insurance policies are subject to deductibles and retention levels that we consider reasonable and not excessive. Consistent with insurance coverage generally available in the industry, in certain circumstances our insurance policies provide limited coverage for losses or liabilities relating to gradual pollution, with broader coverage for sudden and accidental occurrences.

Assets we have acquired or will acquire in the future may have environmental remediation liabilities for which we are not indemnified. We have in the past experienced and in the future likely will experience releases of crude oil into the environment from our pipeline and storage operations. We also may discover environmental impacts from past releases that were previously unidentified.

Insurance

A pipeline, terminal or other facility may experience damage as a result of an accident, natural disaster or terrorist activity. These hazards can cause personal injury and loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, pollution or environmental damage and suspension of operations. We maintain various types of insurance that we consider adequate to cover our operations and certain assets. The insurance policies are subject to deductibles or self-insured retentions that we consider reasonable. Our insurance does not cover every potential risk associated with operating pipelines, terminals and other facilities, including the potential loss of significant revenues.

The occurrence of a significant event not fully insured, indemnified or reserved against, or the failure of a party to meet its indemnification obligations, could materially and adversely affect our operations and financial condition. We believe we are adequately insured for public liability and property damage with respect to our operations. In the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance at levels that we consider adequate for rates we consider reasonable. As a result, we may elect to self-insure or utilize higher deductibles in certain insurance programs. For example, the market for hurricane- or windstorm-related property damage coverage has remained difficult the last few years. The amount of coverage available has been limited, costs have increased substantially and deductibles have increased as well.

In 2011, we elected not to renew our hurricane insurance, and, instead, to self-insure this risk. Our assessment of the current availability of coverage and associated rates has led us to the decision to continue to self-insure. This decision does not affect our third-party liability insurance, which still covers hurricane-related liability claims which we have renewed at our historic coverage levels. In addition, although we believe that we have established adequate reserves to the extent such risks are not insured, costs incurred in excess of these reserves may be higher and may potentially have a material adverse effect on our financial conditions, results of operations or cash flows.