Commitments and Contingencies |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2018 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We are the subject of, or a party to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions, contingencies and commitments involving a variety of matters, including laws and regulations relating to the environment. Some of these matters are discussed below. For matters for which we have not recorded a liability, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss because the issues involved have not been fully developed through pleadings, discovery or court proceedings. However, the ultimate resolution of some of these contingencies could, individually or in the aggregate, be material. Environmental matters—We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment. These laws generally provide for control of pollutants released into the environment and require responsible parties to undertake remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites and certain other locations including presently or formerly owned or operated retail marketing sites. Penalties may be imposed for noncompliance. At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, accrued liabilities for remediation totaled $112 million and $114 million, respectively. It is not presently possible to estimate the ultimate amount of all remediation costs that might be incurred or the penalties if any that may be imposed. Receivables for recoverable costs from certain states, under programs to assist companies in clean-up efforts related to underground storage tanks at presently or formerly owned or operated retail marketing sites, were $45 million at both March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017. We are involved in a number of environmental enforcement matters arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome and impact on us cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the resolution of these environmental matters will not, individually or collectively, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. MarkWest Environmental Proceeding - MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX (“MarkWest Liberty Midstream”) and its affiliates agreed in principle to pay a cash penalty of approximately $0.6 million and to undertake certain supplemental environmental projects with an estimated cost of approximately $2.4 million, related to civil enforcement allegations associated with permitting and other regulatory obligations for launcher/receiver and compressor station facilities in southeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. On April 24, 2018, MarkWest Liberty Midstream and its affiliates entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) resolving these issues, subject to a 30-day public comment period, pursuant to which MarkWest Liberty Midstream will pay a penalty of $0.6 million and undertake certain supplemental environmental projects with an estimated cost of approximately $2.4 million, in addition to other related projects that are substantially complete. Other Lawsuits - MPLX, MarkWest, MarkWest Liberty Midstream, MarkWest Liberty Bluestone, L.L.C., Ohio Fractionation and MarkWest Utica EMG (collectively, the “MPLX Parties”) are parties to various lawsuits with Bilfinger Westcon, Inc. (“Westcon”) that were instituted in 2016 and 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, Pennsylvania, the Circuit Court in Wetzel County, West Virginia, and the Court of Common Pleas in Harrison County, Ohio. The lawsuits relate to disputes regarding construction work performed by Westcon at the Bluestone, Mobley and Cadiz processing complexes in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, respectively, and the Hopedale fractionation complex in Ohio. With respect to work performed by Westcon at the Mobley and Bluestone processing complexes, one or more of the MPLX Parties have asserted breach of contract, fraud, and with respect to work performed at the Mobley processing complex, MarkWest Liberty Midstream has also asserted negligent misrepresentation claims against Westcon. Westcon has also asserted claims against one or more of the MPLX Parties regarding these construction projects for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, fraud and constructive fraud, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. Collectively, in the several cases, the MPLX Parties seek in excess of $10 million, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. Collectively, in the several cases, Westcon seeks in excess of $40 million, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. While the ultimate outcome and impact cannot be predicted with certainty, and management is not able to estimate a reasonably possible loss (or range of loss), if any, for these matters, we believe the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In May 2015, the Kentucky attorney general filed a lawsuit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, MPC LP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky asserting claims under federal and state antitrust statutes, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and state common law. The complaint, as amended in July 2015, alleges that MPC LP used deed restrictions, supply agreements with customers and exchange agreements with competitors to unreasonably restrain trade in areas within Kentucky and seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, civil penalties, restitution and disgorgement of profits. At this stage, the ultimate outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, can be determined, and we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss (or range of loss) for this matter. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. In May 2007, the Kentucky attorney general filed a lawsuit against us and Marathon Oil in state court in Franklin County, Kentucky for alleged violations of Kentucky’s emergency pricing and consumer protection laws following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The lawsuit alleges that we overcharged customers by $89 million during September and October 2005. The complaint seeks disgorgement of these sums, as well as penalties, under Kentucky’s emergency pricing and consumer protection laws. We are vigorously defending this litigation. We believe that this is the first lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief under the Kentucky emergency pricing laws to progress this far and it contains many novel issues. In May 2011, the Kentucky attorney general amended his complaint to include a request for immediate injunctive relief as well as unspecified damages and penalties related to our wholesale gasoline pricing in April and May 2011 under statewide price controls that were activated by the Kentucky governor on April 26, 2011 and which have since expired. The court denied the attorney general’s request for immediate injunctive relief, and the remainder of the 2011 claims likely will be resolved along with those dating from 2005. If the lawsuit is resolved unfavorably in its entirety, it could materially impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, management does not believe the ultimate resolution of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are also a party to a number of other lawsuits and other proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate outcome and impact to us cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the resolution of these other lawsuits and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Guarantees—We have provided certain guarantees, direct and indirect, of the indebtedness of other companies. Under the terms of most of these guarantee arrangements, we would be required to perform should the guaranteed party fail to fulfill its obligations under the specified arrangements. In addition to these financial guarantees, we also have various performance guarantees related to specific agreements. Guarantees related to indebtedness of equity method investees—MPC and MPLX hold interests in an offshore oil port, LOOP, and MPLX holds an interest in a crude oil pipeline system, LOCAP. Both LOOP and LOCAP have secured various project financings with throughput and deficiency agreements. Under the agreements, MPC, as a shipper, is required to advance funds if the investees are unable to service their debt. Any such advances are considered prepayments of future transportation charges. The duration of the agreements vary but tend to follow the terms of the underlying debt, which extend through 2037. Our maximum potential undiscounted payments under these agreements for the debt principal totaled $160 million as of March 31, 2018. We hold an interest in a refined products pipeline through our investment in Centennial, and have guaranteed our portion of the payment of Centennial’s principal, interest and prepayment costs, if applicable, under a Master Shelf Agreement, which is scheduled to expire in 2024. The guarantee arose in order for Centennial to obtain adequate financing. Our maximum potential undiscounted payments under this agreement for debt principal totaled $24 million as of March 31, 2018. In connection with our 50 percent indirect interest in Crowley Ocean Partners, we have agreed to conditionally guarantee our portion of the obligations of the joint venture and its subsidiaries under a senior secured term loan agreement. The term loan agreement provides for loans of up to $325 million to finance the acquisition of four product tankers. MPC’s liability under the guarantee for each vessel is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain events, including if we cease to maintain an investment grade credit rating or the charter for the relevant product tanker ceases to be in effect and is not replaced by a charter with an investment grade company on certain defined commercial terms. As of March 31, 2018, our maximum potential undiscounted payments under this agreement for debt principal totaled $163 million. In connection with our 50 percent indirect interest in Crowley Blue Water Partners, we have agreed to provide a conditional guarantee of up to 50 percent of its outstanding debt balance in the event there is no charter agreement in place with an investment grade customer for the entity’s three vessels as well as other financial support in certain circumstances. The maximum exposure under these arrangements is 50 percent of the amount of the debt, which was $132 million as of March 31, 2018. Marathon Oil indemnifications—In conjunction with our spinoff from Marathon Oil, we have entered into arrangements with Marathon Oil providing indemnities and guarantees with recorded values of $2 million as of March 31, 2018, which consist of unrecognized tax benefits related to MPC, its consolidated subsidiaries and the refining, marketing and transportation business operations prior to our spinoff which are not already reflected in the unrecognized tax benefits described in Note 12, and other contingent liabilities Marathon Oil may incur related to taxes. Furthermore, the separation and distribution agreement and other agreements with Marathon Oil to effect our spinoff provide for cross-indemnities between Marathon Oil and us. In general, Marathon Oil is required to indemnify us for any liabilities relating to Marathon Oil’s historical oil and gas exploration and production operations, oil sands mining operations and integrated gas operations, and we are required to indemnify Marathon Oil for any liabilities relating to Marathon Oil’s historical refining, marketing and transportation operations. The terms of these indemnifications are indefinite and the amounts are not capped. Other guarantees—We have entered into other guarantees with maximum potential undiscounted payments totaling $93 million as of March 31, 2018, which primarily consist of a commitment to contribute cash to an equity method investee for certain catastrophic events, up to $50 million per event, in lieu of procuring insurance coverage, a commitment to fund a share of the bonds issued by a government entity for construction of public utilities in the event that other industrial users of the facility default on their utility payments and leases of assets containing general lease indemnities and guaranteed residual values. General guarantees associated with dispositions – Over the years, we have sold various assets in the normal course of our business. Certain of the related agreements contain performance and general guarantees, including guarantees regarding inaccuracies in representations, warranties, covenants and agreements, and environmental and general indemnifications that require us to perform upon the occurrence of a triggering event or condition. These guarantees and indemnifications are part of the normal course of selling assets. We are typically not able to calculate the maximum potential amount of future payments that could be made under such contractual provisions because of the variability inherent in the guarantees and indemnities. Most often, the nature of the guarantees and indemnities is such that there is no appropriate method for quantifying the exposure because the underlying triggering event has little or no past experience upon which a reasonable prediction of the outcome can be based. Contractual commitments and contingencies—At March 31, 2018, our contractual commitments to acquire property, plant and equipment and advance funds to equity method investees totaled $879 million. Certain natural gas processing and gathering arrangements require us to construct natural gas processing plants, natural gas gathering pipelines and NGL pipelines and contain certain fees and charges if specified construction milestones are not achieved for reasons other than force majeure. In certain cases, certain producer customers may have the right to cancel the processing arrangements with us if there are significant delays that are not due to force majeure. |