XML 23 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 5 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Appeal with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue In 2009, the Company recognized allowable reductions of cash payments for royalties owed to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (the “ONRR”) for transportation of its deepwater production through subsea pipeline systems owned by the Company. In 2010, the ONRR audited calculations and support related to this usage fee, and ONRR notified the Company that they had disallowed approximately $4.7 million of the reductions taken. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has accrued $5.0 million related to this matter, consisting of $4.7 million for the disallowed reductions and $0.3 million for estimated penalties. The Company disagrees with the position taken by the ONRR and filed an appeal with the ONRR. The Company has continued to pursue its legal rights and, at present, the case is in front of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana where both parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and opposition briefs. The Company has filed a Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, and the government has in turn filed its Reply brief. With briefing now completed, the Company is waiting for the district court’s ruling on the merits. ONRR Audit of Historical Refund Claims In 2023, the Company received notification from the ONRR regarding results of an audit performed on the Company’s historical refund claims taken on various properties for alleged royalties owed to the ONRR. The review process is ongoing, and the Company does not believe any accrual is necessary at this time. Bonding Disputes On August 14, 2024, the Company filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief (the “Original Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Endurance Assurance Corporation and Lexon Insurance Company (the “Sompo Sureties”), providers of private and government-required surety bonds that secure decommissioning obligations or ONRR disputed matters the Company may have with respect to certain oil and gas assets of the Company (the “Sompo Sureties Litigation”). As described in the Original Complaint, the Company has paid all negotiated premiums associated with the bonds issued by the Sompo Sureties prior to the Original Complaint and has not suffered a material change to its financial status. Despite this, the Sompo Sureties issued written demands to the Company requesting the Company provide collateral to the Sompo Sureties. On October 9, 2024, the Sompo Sureties filed an answer and counterclaim alleging breach of contract due to the Company’s failure to provide the collateral demanded by the Sompo Sureties. The Sompo Sureties originally issued approximately $55.0 million in surety bonds on behalf of the Company. However, the BOEM cancelled a $13.1 million bond when the Company fulfilled its decommissioning obligations. Despite this, the Sompo Sureties have requested approximately $55.0 million in cash collateral. On October 21, 2024, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (“USSIC”) filed a petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging, among other things, breach of the indemnity agreement between the Company and USSIC and seeking to compel the Company to provide the collateral demanded by USSIC (the “USSIC Litigation”). On October 25, 2024, the Company filed a notice of removal with the District Court of Harris County, Texas, removing the case to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. USSIC has issued approximately $111.0 million in surety bonds on behalf of the Company and has requested $23.0 million in cash collateral. On November 8, 2024, Pennsylvania Insurance Company a/k/a Applied Surety Underwriters (“Applied”) filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging, among other things, breach of the indemnity agreement between the Company and Applied and seeking to compel the Company to provide the collateral demanded by Applied and unpaid premiums of approximately $0.4 million (the “Applied Litigation”). Applied issued approximately $11.3 million in surety bonds on behalf of the Company and has requested approximately $11.3 million in cash collateral. Also on November 8, 2024, United States Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire” and, together with the Sompo Sureties, USSIC and Applied, the “Sureties”) filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging, among other things, breach of the indemnity agreement between the Company and U.S. Fire and seeking to compel the Company to provide the collateral demanded by U.S. Fire (the “U.S. Fire Litigation”). U.S. Fire claims to have issued approximately $93.5 million in surety bonds on behalf of the Company and has requested approximately $93.5 million in cash collateral. The Sureties’ aggregate collateral demands against the Company total approximately $183.7 million. In addition, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”) separately made a collateral demand of $71 million. No legal action has been filed by PIIC as of the date hereof. The total aggregate collateral demanded by the Sureties and PIIC is approximately $254.7 million (the “Demanded Collateral”). On November 22, 2024, the court consolidated the Sompo Sureties Litigation, USSIC Litigation, the Applied Litigation, and the U.S. Fire Litigation (as consolidated, the “Sureties Litigation”). On December 11, 2024, as a result of the foregoing, the Company filed an amended complaint (the Original Complaint, as amended, the “Complaint”) against the Sureties. The Complaint, in relevant part, seeks declaratory relief that (1) the Sureties may not enforce their indemnity agreements such that their action constitute an abuse of right; (2) the Sureties’ interpretation of the indemnity agreements render the agreements illusory; (3) the Sureties may not make unreasonable demands for collateral; (4) the Sureties must accept reasonable collateral as offered by the Company; (5) no additional collateral is required of the Company; (6) the Sureties may not make joint demands for collateral that are inconsistent with those of each other such that the Company cannot comply with each demand; and (7) the Sureties’ changed business model are not legitimate grounds to demand further collateral beyond that offered by the Company. The Company further asserts the following counterclaim against the Sureties: (1) violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act; (2) violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act; (3) violations of the Texas Insurance Code Section 541; (4) tortious interference with existing contracts and prospective business relationships; and (5) conspiracy. On June 14, 2025, the Company entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement, dated effective as of June 13, 2025 (the “USSIC Settlement Agreement”), by and between the Company and USSIC and, on June 15, 2025, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated effective as of June 14, 2025 (the “PIIC Settlement Agreement,” and, together with the USSIC Settlement Agreement, the “Settlement Agreements”), by and between the Company and PIIC to dismiss all claims related to the Sureties Litigation without prejudice. Pursuant to the applicable Settlement Agreement, USSIC and PIIC agree that: (i) there will be no change to the 2024 premium rates paid by the Company or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or joint venture entities, for any currently existing surety bond executed by USSIC or PIIC until after December 31, 2026, at the earliest, (ii) USSIC and PIIC withdraw all demands for collateral and agree not to request, demand, or otherwise insist on collateral, whether related to a surety bond or pursuant to the indemnity agreements, until after December 31, 2026, at the earliest; provided that such restriction shall not apply if (a) the Company does not pay premiums owed to USSIC or PIIC when due; (b) a claim is made by a third party against any bond issued by USSIC or PIIC to the Company or its affiliates or subsidiaries; (c) there is an initiation of an insolvency proceeding for the Company or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or joint venture entities, whether voluntary or involuntary; (d) there is an uncured event of default under the indenture governing the Company’s second lien notes due 2029 that results in an acceleration, in whole or in part, of the indebtedness thereunder; or (e) the Company or its affiliates or subsidiaries initiate a lawsuit against USSIC or PIIC. Each of the Settlement Agreements also provides that, in the event that the Company enters into an agreement to provide collateral to another party in settlement of the Sureties Litigation on bonds existing as of the date of the Settlement Agreement, the Company shall, on a pro rata basis, provide substantially similar collateral to USSIC or PIIC as it does to such other party. On June 30, 2025, the Company announced that the presiding judge in the Sureties Litigation recommended denying the requests for preliminary injunction submitted by two surety providers. The preliminary injunction would have required the Company to immediately post $105 million of collateral. The recommendation, which is expected to be upheld, would effectively nullify all current collateral requests by the surety providers and the Company will not be required to post collateral (if at all) until a determination on the merits of the Sureties Litigation with the remaining surety providers. All of the remaining parties to the Sureties Litigation previously agreed to mediate the case until the mediator declares an impasse. As of August 2025, mediation is no longer active as the mediator has declared an impasse with respect to the surety providers that did not enter into the Settlement Agreement. The Company continues to evaluate potential avenues for resolution of the remaining collateral-related matters. To the extent that the Company is required to fulfill the collateral demands made by the remaining surety entities, or in the event that other surety entities make additional collateral demands, the fulfillment of such demands could be significant and could impact the Company’s liquidity. Contingent Decommissioning Obligations Certain counterparties in past divestiture transactions or third parties in existing leases that have filed for bankruptcy protection or undergone associated reorganizations may not be able to perform required abandonment obligations. Due to operation of law, the Company may be required to assume decommissioning obligations for those interests. The Company may be held jointly and severally liable for the decommissioning of various facilities and related wells. The Company no longer owns these assets, nor are they related to current operations. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company incurred $1.4 million in costs related to the decommissioning obligations and, after reassessing the existing anticipated decommissioning obligations, recorded an additional $13.7 million increase in the decommissioning obligations accrual. As of June 30, 2025, the accrual for these decommissioning obligations is $34.8 million. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company could receive state or federal decommissioning orders in the future or be notified of defaulting third parties in existing leases, the Company cannot predict with certainty, if, how or when such orders or notices will be resolved or estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from such orders. However, the Company could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise the Company’s opinion regarding the outcome of certain notices or matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and the Company’s cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. To the extent the Company does incur costs associated with these properties in future periods, the Company intends to seek contribution from other parties that owned an interest in the facilities. Other Claims In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a party to various pending or threatened claims and complaints seeking damages or other remedies concerning commercial operations and other matters. In addition, claims or contingencies may arise related to matters occurring prior to the Company’s acquisition of properties or related to matters occurring subsequent to the Company’s sale of properties. In certain cases, the Company has indemnified the sellers of properties acquired, and in other cases, has indemnified the buyers of properties sold. The Company is also subject to federal and state administrative proceedings conducted in the ordinary course of business including matters related to alleged royalty underpayments on certain federal-owned properties. Although the Company can give no assurance about the outcome of pending legal and federal or state administrative proceedings and the effect such an outcome may have, the Company believes that any ultimate liability resulting from the outcome of such proceedings, to the extent not otherwise provided for or covered by insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration