Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary course of business, the Company is, and in the future, could be involved in various pending or threatened legal actions, some of which may or may not be covered by insurance. Management has reviewed such pending judicial and legal proceedings, the reasonably anticipated costs and expenses in connection with such proceedings, and the availability and limits of insurance coverage, and has established reserves that are believed to be appropriate in light of those outcomes that are believed to be probable and can be estimated. The reserves accrued at December 31, 2022 and 2021 are immaterial. In the opinion of management, the Company’s ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Asbestos litigation One of our subsidiaries has been named as one of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for alleged exposure to asbestos used in valves. These lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against numerous defendants, often forty or more, who are alleged to have manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from mesothelioma and other cancers to asbestosis. The earliest claims against our subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998, and our subsidiary currently has active cases in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois. These complaints do not typically include requests for a specific amount of damages. Our subsidiary acquired the trademark for the product line in question in 1985. To date, most of the claims against our subsidiary alleging illnesses due to asbestos have generally been based on products manufactured by the previous owner prior to 1985 that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Many claimants alleging illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis of exposure prior to 1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos exposure were well known and asbestos had begun to fall into disuse. Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in most lawsuits without any cash contribution including because the “successor liability” law in most states does not hold a purchaser in good faith liable for the actions of the seller prior to the acquisition date unless the purchaser contractually assumed the liabilities, which our subsidiary did not. There are exceptions to the successor liability doctrine in many states, so there are no assurances that our subsidiary will not be found liable for the actions of its predecessor. The law in other states on so called “successor liability” may be different or ambiguous in this regard, and could also expose our subsidiary to liability. Our subsidiary could also be found liable should a trier of fact reject our subsidiary’s position that it is not responsible for the alleged asbestos injuries, such as in a case where a plaintiff alleges post-1985 exposure. To date, asbestos claims have not had a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over the last five years has been less than $300,000. There were approximately forty new cases filed against our subsidiary in each of last two years, and a significant number of existing cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed of over the last year. We currently have fewer than 150 lawsuits pending against this subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over $17 million in face amount of insurance per occurrence and over $23 million of aggregate primary insurance coverage. In addition, our subsidiary has over $950 million in face amount of excess coverage applicable to the claims. There can be no guarantee that all of this can be collected due to policy terms and conditions and insurer insolvencies in the past or in the future. In January 2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the costs of handling and settling each asbestos claim against the affected subsidiary. The insurers’ portion of the settlements is funded by our primary insurance limits, which are eroded only by settlements and not legal fees. Approximately $2.0 million in settlements has been paid by insurers and our subsidiary to date, with approximately $100,000 paid over the course of the last two years. Our subsidiary and the subscribing insurers have the right to withdraw from this agreement, but to date, no party has exercised this right or expressed an intent to do so. Tenaris litigation In October of 2017, one of our subsidiaries, Global Tubing LLC (“Global Tubing”), filed suit against Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC and Tenaris, S.A. (together “Tenaris”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaration that its DURACOILTM products do not infringe certain Tenaris patents related to coiled tubing. Tenaris filed counterclaims against Global Tubing alleging DURACOILTM products infringe three patents. Tenaris seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. Global Tubing is vigorously defending itself and alleges the Tenaris patents are invalid and unenforceable. While Global Tubing believes that it will prevail in showing that its products do not infringe on Tenaris’s patents, if Tenaris were to obtain a permanent injunction, Global Tubing may be barred from selling certain of its DURACOILTM products. Alternatively, if we are ordered to pay money damages and/or royalties for the life of the patents in question, Global Tubing’s and the Company’s financial performance may be materially adversely impacted. Portland Harbor Superfund One of the Company’s dormant subsidiaries is one of several named defendants in a suit filed by the Port of Portland, Oregon in May 2009 seeking reimbursement of costs related to an environmental study at the Port of Portland, and in March 2010, was identified as a potentially responsible party by the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The subsidiary is indemnified for environmental contamination losses by a third party that has assumed responsibility and is providing a defense of the claims. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or capital expenditures of the Company. Operating leases The Company has operating leases for warehouses, office space, manufacturing facilities and equipment. The leases generally require the Company to pay certain expenses including taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. See Note 9 Leases for further information. Letters of credit and guarantees The Company executes letters of credit in the normal course of business to secure the delivery of product from specific vendors and also to guarantee the Company fulfilling certain performance obligations relating to certain large contracts. At December 31, 2022, the Company had $21.8 million in letters of credit outstanding.