XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
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 Earnout Dispute On June 17, 2013, a wholly owned subsidiary of Par entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with Andeavor Corporation, formerly known as Tesoro Corporation (“Tesoro”), pursuant to which it purchased all of the issued and outstanding membership interests in Tesoro Hawaii, LLC, an entity that was renamed Hawaii Independent Energy, LLC, and thereafter renamed Par Hawaii Refining, LLC. The cash consideration for the acquisition is subject to an earn-out provision during the years 2014-2016, subject to, among other things, an annual earn-out cap of $20 million. Tesoro has disputed our calculation of the 2015 and 2016 earn-out amounts. If we and Tesoro are unable to agree on the calculation of the 2015 and 2016 earn-out amounts, the dispute will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the membership interest purchase agreement to determine the amount owed, if any. Mid Pac Earnout and Indemnity Dispute Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated August 3, 2011 and amended October 25, 2011 (the “SPA”), Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC (“Mid Pac”) purchased all the issued and outstanding stock of Inter Island Petroleum, Inc. (“Inter Island”) from Brian J. and Wendy Barbata (collectively, the “Barbatas”). The SPA provides for an earn-out payment to be made to the Barbatas in an amount equal to four times the amount by which the average of Inter Island’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization during the relevant earn-out period exceeds $3.5 million. The earn-out payment is capped at a maximum of $4.5 million. Mid Pac contends that there are no amounts owed to the Barbatas for the earn-out period. By letter dated May 29, 2014, the Barbatas disputed Mid Pac’s computation of the earn-out, without explanation of the amount they claim to be owed or refutation of Mid Pac’s analysis. Mid Pac intends to vigorously oppose any such claims. Any claims by the Barbatas may be offset by Mid Pac’s claims for indemnification under the SPA. By letters dated December 31, 2013 and April 25, 2014, Mid Pac has asserted indemnification claims against the Barbatas exceeding $1 million with respect to environmental losses arising from certain terminals operated by Inter Island and its subsidiaries. The Barbatas have disputed such claims. Arbitration for the earn-out and indemnification claims is scheduled to commence on April 2, 2018. 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 has been scheduled for the week of February 26, 2018. 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. Based on current information, however, preliminary estimates we have received for the well-understood components of these efforts suggest total response costs of approximately $20.0 million, approximately one-third of which we expect to incur in the next 5 years, with the remainder being 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 preliminary information, reasonable estimates we have received suggest costs of approximately $0.5 million to modify or close the existing wastewater treatment ponds and 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 Wyoming Refining has 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 appears to be declining 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. Moreover, in addition to the issues associated with the Wyoming refinery, certain product pipeline assets were acquired in the WRC Acquisition. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) recently conducted an integrated inspection of the products pipeline with additional follow-up regarding integrity management planning and general operations and maintenance. Based on preliminary discussions with PHMSA following this inspection, the Wyoming refinery anticipates a civil penalty in excess of $100,000. In connection with our acquisition of, and commencement of operations at, the Wyoming refinery, findings of a past failure to comply with applicable environmental or pipeline safety laws and regulations may trigger a variety of administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties that could be in excess of $100,000, the imposition of investigatory, remedial, or corrective actions, and the issuance of orders enjoining future operations or imposing additional compliance requirements on such operations. 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. Affected existing sources will be required to comply with the new requirements no later than 2018, with certain refiners required to comply earlier depending on the relevant provision and refinery construction date. We do not anticipate that compliance with this rule will have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. 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”) that, 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 a second Renewable Fuel Standard (the “RFS2”). In August 2012, the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly adopted regulations that establish an average industry fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025. The RFS2 requires an increasing amount of renewable fuel usage, up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. In the near term, the RFS2 will be satisfied primarily with fuel ethanol blended into gasoline. The RFS2 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 credits 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. In October 2010, the EPA issued a partial waiver decision under the 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. 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. Consequently, unless either the state or federal regulations are revised, RINs will be required to fulfill the federal mandate for renewable fuels. In March 2014, the EPA published a final Tier 3 gasoline standard that lowers the allowable sulfur level in gasoline to 10 parts per million (“ppm”) and also lowers the allowable benzene, aromatics, and olefins content of gasoline, with the most recent rulemaking addressing certain technical corrections and clarifications effective June 21, 2016. 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. Our Hawaii refinery is 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. On March 19, 2015, the EPA confirmed the small volume refinery status of our Wyoming refinery. There will be compliance costs and uncertainties regarding how we will comply with the various requirements contained in the EISA and other fuel-related regulations. Along with credit and trading options, potential capital upgrades for the Hawaii and Wyoming refineries are being evaluated. We may also 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 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. We estimate the cost of compliance with the Consent Decree to be approximately $30 million. However, Tesoro is responsible under the Environmental Agreement for 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 June 30, 2017, Tesoro has reimbursed us for $11.0 million of the total capital expenditures of $12.0 million incurred in connection with the Consent Decree. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, we incurred $0.9 million and $2.4 million of capital expenditures in connection with the Consent Decree, respectively. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, Tesoro reimbursed us for $1.2 million and $4.7 million of capital expenditures in connection with the Consent Decree, respectively. Net capital expenditures and reimbursements related to the Consent Decree for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 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 the Debtors hold against third parties. As of June 30, 2017, two related claims totaling approximately $22.4 million remained to be resolved by the trustee for the General Trust and we have reserved 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 are settled at a ratio of 54.4 shares per $1,000 of claim.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration