XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Loss Contingencies — General To the extent we are able to assess the likelihood of a negative outcome for a contingency, 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 an undiscounted liability equal to the estimated amount. If a range of probable loss amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then we accrue an undiscounted liability equal to the minimum amount in the range. In addition, we estimate legal fees that we expect to incur associated with loss contingencies and accrue those costs when they are material and probable of being incurred. We do not record a contingent liability when the likelihood of loss is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the likelihood of loss is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the impact would be material to our consolidated financial statements, we disclose the nature of the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Legal Proceedings — General In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings, including those arising from regulatory and environmental matters. In connection with determining the probability of loss associated with such legal proceedings and whether any potential losses associated therewith are estimable, we take into account what we believe to be all relevant known facts and circumstances, and what we believe to be reasonable assumptions regarding the application of those facts and circumstances to existing agreements, laws and regulations. Although we are insured against various risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to fully protect us from losses arising from current or future legal proceedings. Accordingly, we can provide no assurance that the outcome of the various legal proceedings that we are currently involved in, or will become involved with in the future, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental — General Although we have made significant investments in our maintenance and integrity programs, we have experienced (and likely will experience future) releases of hydrocarbon products into the environment from our pipeline, rail, storage and other facility operations. These releases can result from accidents or from unpredictable man-made or natural forces and may reach surface water bodies, groundwater aquifers or other sensitive environments. Damages and liabilities associated with any such releases from our existing or future assets could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. 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 we believe are 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 March 31, 2020, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident, as discussed further below) totaled $142 million, of which $89 million was classified as short-term and $53 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2019, our estimated undiscounted reserve for environmental liabilities (including liabilities related to the Line 901 incident) totaled $140 million, of which $60 million was classified as short-term and $80 million was classified as long-term. Such short- and long-term environmental liabilities are reflected in “Other current liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits,” respectively, on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At March 31, 2020, we had recorded receivables totaling $81 million for amounts probable of recovery under insurance and from third parties under indemnification agreements, of which $69 million was classified as short-term and $12 million was classified as long-term. At December 31, 2019, we had recorded $72 million of such receivables, of which $35 million was classified as short-term and $37 million was classified as long-term. Such short- and long-term receivables are reflected in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” and “Other long-term assets, net,” respectively, on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In some cases, the actual cash expenditures associated with these liabilities may not occur for three years or longer. Our estimates used in determining 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 or future legal claims giving rise to additional liabilities. Therefore, although we believe that the reserve is adequate, actual costs incurred (which may ultimately include costs for contingencies that are currently not reasonably estimable or costs for contingencies where the likelihood of loss is currently believed to be only reasonably possible or remote) may be in excess of the reserve and may potentially have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Specific Legal, Environmental or Regulatory Matters Line 901 Incident. In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved. Our estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and information and as set forth in the Consent Decree described below, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, we estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean. As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental agencies and regulators initiated investigations into the Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to incur as a result of the Line 901 incident. Set forth below is a brief summary of actions and matters that are currently pending: On May 21, 2015, we received a corrective action order from the United States Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the operation of Line 901 as well as over a second stretch of pipeline extending from Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County to Emidio Pump Station in Kern County, California (Line 903), requiring us to shut down, purge, review, remediate and test Line 901. The corrective action order was subsequently amended on June 3, 2015; November 12, 2015; and June 16, 2016 to require us to take additional corrective actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903 (as amended, the “CAO”). Among other requirements, the CAO obligated us to conduct a root cause failure analysis with respect to Line 901 and present remedial work plans and restart plans to PHMSA prior to returning Line 901 and 903 to service; the CAO also imposed a pressure restriction on the section of Line 903 between Pentland Pump Station and Emidio Pump Station, which was subsequently lifted, and required us to take other specified actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903. We intend to continue to comply with the CAO and to cooperate with any other governmental investigations relating to or arising out of the release. Excavation and removal of the affected section of the pipeline was completed on May 28, 2015. Line 901 and Line 903 have been purged and are not currently operational, with the exception of the Pentland to Emidio segment of Line 903, which remains in service. No timeline has been established for the restart of Line 901 or Line 903. The remaining uncompleted portions of the CAO, which primarily relate to returning Lines 901 and 903 to service, have been incorporated into the Consent Decree (defined and discussed below). Upon entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, we expect that the CAO will be closed out by PHMSA. On February 17, 2016, PHMSA issued a Preliminary Factual Report of the Line 901 failure, which contains PHMSA’s preliminary findings regarding factual information about the events leading up to the accident and the technical analysis that has been conducted to date. On May 19, 2016, PHMSA issued its final Failure Investigation Report regarding the Line 901 incident. PHMSA’s findings indicate that the direct cause of the Line 901 incident was external corrosion that thinned the pipe wall to a level where it ruptured suddenly and released crude oil. PHMSA also concluded that there were numerous contributory causes of the Line 901 incident, including ineffective protection against external corrosion, failure to detect and mitigate the corrosion and a lack of timely detection and response to the rupture. The report also included copies of various engineering and technical reports regarding the incident. All potential claims by PHMSA against PAA arising out of the Line 901 failure would be settled pursuant to the Consent Decree discussed below. In late May of 2015, the California Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorney’s office for the County of Santa Barbara (collectively, the “Prosecutors”) began investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any applicable state or local laws had been violated. On May 16, 2016, PAA and one of its employees were charged by a California state grand jury, pursuant to an indictment filed in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County (the “May 2016 Indictment”), with alleged violations of California law in connection with the Line 901 incident. The May 2016 Indictment included a total of 46 counts against PAA. On July 28, 2016, at an arraignment hearing held in California Superior Court in Santa Barbara County, PAA pled not guilty to all counts. Between May of 2016 and May of 2018, 31 of the criminal charges against PAA (including one felony charge) and all of the criminal charges against our employee, were dismissed. The remaining 15 charges were the subject of a jury trial in California Superior Court in Santa Barbara County that began in May of 2018. The jury returned a verdict on September 7, 2018, pursuant to which we were (i) found guilty on one felony discharge count and eight misdemeanor counts (which included one reporting count, one strict liability discharge count and six strict liability animal takings counts) and (ii) found not guilty on one strict liability animal takings count. The jury deadlocked on three counts (including two felony discharge counts and one strict liability animal takings count), and two misdemeanor discharge counts were dropped. On April 25, 2019, PAA was sentenced to pay fines and penalties in the aggregate amount of just under $3.35 million for the convictions covered by the September 2018 jury verdict (the “2019 Sentence”). The fines and penalties imposed in connection with the 2019 Sentence have been paid. The Superior Court also indicated that it would conduct further hearings on the issue of whether there were any “direct victims” of the spill that are entitled to restitution under applicable law. In April of 2019, the Prosecutors announced their intent to re-try the two felony discharge counts for which no jury verdict was returned. The strict liability animal taking count for which no jury verdict was returned has been dismissed. On October 7, 2019, upon motion from Plains, the court dismissed the two remaining felony counts and vacated a second trial on these counts. Also in late May of 2015, the United States Attorney for the Department of Justice, Central District of California, Environmental Crimes Section (“DOJ”) began an investigation into whether there were any violations of federal criminal statutes in connection with the Line 901 incident, including potential violations of the federal Clean Water Act. We have cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation by responding to their requests for documents and access to our employees. Consistent with the terms of our governing organizational documents, we are funding our employees’ defense costs, including the costs of separate counsel engaged to represent such individuals. Except in connection with the May 2016 Indictment and the 2019 Sentence, to date no criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees. Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we have been processing those claims and making payments as appropriate. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release. The court originally certified three sub-classes of claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the certification of one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry sub-class, and the District Court subsequently dismissed the oil-industry sub-class representatives’ claims. The two remaining sub-classes include (i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and (ii) residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential properties with a private easement to a beach where oil from the spill washed up. The court has tentatively set a trial date of September 1, 2020 for those two sub-classes. We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. In addition, four unitholder derivative lawsuits have been filed by certain purported investors in the Partnership against PAGP and certain of the Partnership’s affiliates, officers and directors. One lawsuit was filed in State District Court in Harris County, Texas and subsequently dismissed by the Court. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and were administratively consolidated into one action and later dismissed on the basis that Plains Partnership agreements require that derivative suits be filed in Delaware Chancery Court. Following the order dismissing the Texas Federal Court suits, a new derivative suit brought by different plaintiffs was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and subsequently dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended and refiled their complaint on June 3, 2019. All claims against the officers and directors of the Partnership and all affiliates of the Partnership, except PAGP, were dismissed with prejudice in January 2020. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and funded the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits. We will vigorously defend the remaining derivative claim against PAGP. We have also received several other individual lawsuits and complaints from companies, governmental agencies and individuals alleging damages arising out of the Line 901 incident. These lawsuits and claims generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some cases permanent injunctive relief. In addition to the foregoing, as the “responsible party” for the Line 901 incident we are liable for various costs and for certain natural resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act. In this regard, following the Line 901 incident, we entered into a cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment (“NRDA”) process with the following federal and state agencies designated or authorized by law to act as trustees for the natural resources of the United States and the State of California (collectively, the “Trustees”): the United States Department of Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, CDFW, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California State Lands Commission, and the Regents of the University of California. As part of the NRDA process, the Partnership and the Trustees jointly and independently planned and conducted a number of natural resource assessment activities related to the Line 901 incident. On March 13, 2020, the United States and the People of the State of California filed a civil complaint against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline L.P. along with a pre-negotiated settlement agreement in the form of a Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree”). The Consent Decree, which was pre-negotiated and signed by DOJ, PHMSA, EPA, CDFW, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Lands Commission, Office of the State Fire Marshal, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Regents of the University of California, will, if entered by the court, settle all of the claims asserted in the lawsuit. The Consent Decree would require Plains to pay $24 million in civil penalties and implement certain agreed-upon injunctive relief, and pay $22.325 million as compensation for injuries to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of natural resources resulting from the Line 901 incident. The Consent Decree is subject to a public notice and comment period that is set to expire on May 20, 2020, and review and approval by the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. We have included the costs associated with the Consent Decree settlement in the loss accrual described below. Taking the foregoing into account, as of March 31, 2020, we estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately $400 million, which estimate includes actual and projected emergency response and clean-up costs, natural resource damage assessments and certain third party claims settlements, as well as estimates for fines, penalties and certain legal fees. We accrue such estimates of aggregate total costs to “Field operating costs” in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. This estimate considers our prior experience in environmental investigation and remediation matters and available data from, and in consultation with, our environmental and other specialists, as well as currently available facts and presently enacted laws and regulations. We have made assumptions for (i) the duration of the natural resource damage assessment process and the ultimate amount of damages determined, (ii) the resolution of certain third party claims and lawsuits, but excluding claims and lawsuits with respect to which losses are not probable and reasonably estimable, and excluding future claims and lawsuits, (iii) the determination and calculation of fines and penalties, but excluding fines and penalties that are not probable or reasonably estimable and (iv) the nature, extent and cost of legal services that will be required in connection with all lawsuits, claims and other matters requiring legal or expert advice associated with the Line 901 incident. Our estimate does not include any lost revenue associated with the shutdown of Line 901 or 903 and does not include any liabilities or costs that are not reasonably estimable at this time or that relate to contingencies where we currently regard the likelihood of loss as being only reasonably possible or remote. We believe we have accrued adequate amounts for all probable and reasonably estimable costs; however, this estimate is subject to uncertainties associated with the assumptions that we have made. For example, the amount of time it takes for us to resolve all of the current and future lawsuits, claims and investigations that relate to the Line 901 incident could turn out to be significantly longer than we have assumed, and as a result the costs we incur for legal services could be significantly higher than we have estimated. In addition, with respect to fines and penalties, the ultimate amount of any fines and penalties assessed against us depends on a wide variety of factors, many of which are not estimable at this time. Where fines and penalties are probable and estimable, we have included them in our estimate, although such estimates could turn out to be wrong. Accordingly, our assumptions and estimates may turn out to be inaccurate and our total costs could turn out to be materially higher; therefore, we can provide no assurance that we will not have to accrue significant additional costs in the future with respect to the Line 901 incident. As of March 31, 2020, we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $90 million related to this event, of which approximately $80 million is presented in “Other current liabilities” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, with the remainder presented in “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits.” We maintain insurance coverage, which is subject to certain exclusions and deductibles, in the event of such environmental liabilities. Subject to such exclusions and deductibles, we believe that our coverage is adequate to cover the current estimated total emergency response and clean-up costs, claims settlement costs and remediation costs and we believe that this coverage is also adequate to cover any potential increase in the estimates for these costs that exceed the amounts currently identified. Through March 31, 2020, we had collected, subject to customary reservations, $203 million out of the approximate $275 million of release costs that we believe are probable of recovery from insurance carriers, net of deductibles. Therefore, as of March 31, 2020, we have recognized a receivable of approximately $72 million for the portion of the release costs that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles and amounts already collected. Of this amount, approximately $63 million is recognized as a current asset in “Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, with the remainder in “Other long-term assets, net.” We have completed the required clean-up and remediation work as determined by the Unified Command and the Unified Command has been dissolved; however, we expect to make payments for additional costs associated with restoration of the impacted areas, as well as natural resource damage assessment and compensation, legal, professional and regulatory costs, in addition to fines and penalties, during future periods.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration