Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies Litigation 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. 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, rail 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. At March 31, 2015, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled $75 million, of which $11 million was classified as short-term and $64 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2014, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled $82 million, of which $13 million was classified as short-term and $69 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had recorded receivables totaling $7 million and $8 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In some cases, the actual cash expenditures may not occur for three years or longer. 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. 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 crude oil was contained within our pipeline right of way, but some of the released crude 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. We have satisfied the requirements of the administrative order; however, we may be subjected to a civil penalty. The aggregate cost to clean up and remediate the site was $6 million. Kemp River Pipeline Releases. 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. Final investigation by the Alberta Energy Regulator is not complete. To date, no charges, fines or penalties have been assessed against PMC with respect to these releases; however, it is possible that fines or penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future. We estimate that the aggregate clean-up and remediation costs associated with these releases will be $15 million. Through March 31, 2015, we spent $9 million in connection with clean-up and remediation activities. National Energy Board Audit. In the third quarter of 2014, the National Energy Board (“NEB”) of Canada notified PMC that various corrective actions from a 2010 audit had not been completed to the satisfaction of the NEB. The NEB initiated a process to assess PMC’s approach to compliance with the NEB’s Onshore Pipeline Regulations, which process resulted in the issuance by the NEB of an order on January 15, 2015 that imposed six conditions on PMC designed to enhance PMC’s ability to operate its pipelines in a manner that protects the public and the environment. The conditions include the filing of certain safety critical tasks, controls and programs with the NEB, external audits of certain PMC programs and systems, and periodic update meetings with NEB staff regarding the status and progress of corrective actions. In early February 2015, the NEB imposed a penalty on PMC of $76,000 CAD related to these issues. It is possible that additional fines and penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future related to this matter. In the Matter of Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al. On April 30, 2015, the EPA issued a Finding and Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to PAA’s Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, as amended. The NOV, which cites 10 separate rule violations, questions the validity of construction and operating permits issued to our Bakersfield rail unloading facility in 2012 and 2014 by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the “SJV District”). We believe we fully complied with all applicable regulatory requirements and that the permits issued to us by the SJV District are valid. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this matter; however, it is possible that fines and penalties could be assessed in the future.

Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

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.

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, rail 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.

At March 31, 2015, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled $75 million, of which $11 million was classified as short-term and $64 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2014, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities totaled $82 million, of which $13 million was classified as short-term and $69 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had recorded receivables totaling $7 million and $8 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In some cases, the actual cash expenditures may not occur for three years or longer. 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.

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 crude oil was contained within our pipeline right of way, but some of the released crude 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. We have satisfied the requirements of the administrative order; however, we may be subjected to a civil penalty. The aggregate cost to clean up and remediate the site was $6 million.

Kemp River Pipeline Releases. 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. Final investigation by the Alberta Energy Regulator is not complete. To date, no charges, fines or penalties have been assessed against PMC with respect to these releases; however, it is possible that fines or penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future. We estimate that the aggregate clean-up and remediation costs associated with these releases will be $15 million. Through March 31, 2015, we spent $9 million in connection with clean-up and remediation activities.

National Energy Board Audit. In the third quarter of 2014, the National Energy Board (“NEB”) of Canada notified PMC that various corrective actions from a 2010 audit had not been completed to the satisfaction of the NEB. The NEB initiated a process to assess PMC’s approach to compliance with the NEB’s Onshore Pipeline Regulations, which process resulted in the issuance by the NEB of an order on January 15, 2015 that imposed six conditions on PMC designed to enhance PMC’s ability to operate its pipelines in a manner that protects the public and the environment. The conditions include the filing of certain safety critical tasks, controls and programs with the NEB, external audits of certain PMC programs and systems, and periodic update meetings with NEB staff regarding the status and progress of corrective actions. In early February 2015, the NEB imposed a penalty on PMC of $76,000 CAD related to these issues. It is possible that additional fines and penalties may be assessed against PMC in the future related to this matter.

In the Matter of Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al. On April 30, 2015, the EPA issued a Finding and Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to PAA’s Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, as amended. The NOV, which cites 10 separate rule violations, questions the validity of construction and operating permits issued to our Bakersfield rail unloading facility in 2012 and 2014 by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the “SJV District”). We believe we fully complied with all applicable regulatory requirements and that the permits issued to us by the SJV District are valid. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this matter; however, it is possible that fines and penalties could be assessed in the future.