Commitments and Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Plugging and Abandonment Funds
In connection with the Company’s acquisition in 1997 of the remaining 50% interest in its WCBB properties, the Company assumed the seller’s (Chevron) obligation to contribute approximately $18,000 per month through March 2004 to a plugging and abandonment trust and the obligation to plug a minimum of 20 wells per year for 20 years commencing March 11, 1997. Chevron retained a security interest in production from these properties until the Company’s abandonment obligations to Chevron have been fulfilled. Beginning in 2009, the Company could access the trust for use in plugging and abandonment charges associated with the property, although it has not yet done so. As of June 30, 2017, the plugging and abandonment trust totaled approximately $3.1 million. At June 30, 2017, the Company had plugged 513 wells at WCBB since it began its plugging program in 1997, which management believes fulfills its minimum plugging obligation.
Operating Leases
The Company leases office facilities under non-cancellable operating leases exceeding one year. Future minimum lease commitments under these leases at June 30, 2017 were as follows:
Firm Transportation Commitments
The Company had approximately 2,930,000 MMBtu per day of firm sales contracted with third parties. The table below presents these commitments at June 30, 2017 as follows:
The Company also had approximately $3.8 billion of firm transportation contracted with third parties. The table below presents these commitments at June 30, 2017 as follows:
Other Commitments
Effective October 1, 2014, the Company entered into a Sand Supply Agreement with Muskie Proppant LLC (“Muskie”), a subsidiary of Mammoth Energy, that expires on September 30, 2018. Pursuant to this agreement, as amended, the Company has agreed to purchase annual and monthly amounts of proppant sand subject to exceptions specified in the agreement at agreed pricing plus agreed costs and expenses. Failure by either Muskie or the Company to deliver or accept the minimum monthly amount results in damages calculated per ton based on the difference between the monthly obligation amount and the amount actually delivered or accepted, as applicable. The Company incurred $0.7 million and $2.0 million related to non-utilization fees during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively. The Company did not incur any non-utilization fees during the six months ended June 30, 2017.
Effective October 1, 2014, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement for pressure pumping services with Stingray Pressure Pumping LLC (“Stingray Pressure”), a subsidiary of Mammoth Energy, that expires on September 30, 2018. Pursuant to this agreement, as amended, Stingray Pressure has agreed to provide hydraulic fracturing, stimulation and related completion and rework services to the Company and the Company has agreed to pay Stingray Pressure a monthly service fee plus the associated costs of the services provided.
Future minimum commitments under these agreements at June 30, 2017 are as follows:
Litigation
In two separate complaints, one filed by the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Cameron in the 38th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Cameron on February 9, 2016 and the other filed by the State of Louisiana and the District Attorney for the 15th Judicial District of the State of Louisiana in the 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Vermillion on July 29, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant, among 26 oil and gas companies, in the Cameron Parish complaint and among more than 40 oil and gas companies in the Vermillion Parish complaint, or the Complaints. The Complaints were filed under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and the rules, regulations, orders and ordinances adopted thereunder, which the Company referred to collectively as the CZM Laws, and allege that certain of the defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production and transportation operations associated with the development of the East Hackberry and West Hackberry oil and gas fields, in the case of the Cameron Parish complaint, and the Tigre Lagoon oil and gas field, in the case of the Vermillion Parish complaint, were conducted in violation of the CZM Laws. The Complaints allege that such activities caused substantial damage to land and waterbodies located in the coastal zone of the relevant Parish, including due to defendants’ design, construction and use of waste pits and the alleged failure to properly close the waste pits and to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and return the property affected to its original condition, as well as the defendants’ alleged discharge of waste into the coastal zone. The Complaints also allege that the defendants’ oil and gas activities have resulted in the dredging of numerous canals, which had a direct and significant impact on the state coastal waters within the relevant Parish and that the defendants, among other things, failed to design, construct and maintain these canals using the best practical techniques to prevent bank slumping, erosion and saltwater intrusion and to minimize the potential for inland movement of storm-generated surges, which activities allegedly have resulted in the erosion of marshes and the degradation of terrestrial and aquatic life therein. The Complaints also allege that the defendants failed to re-vegetate, refill, clean, detoxify and otherwise restore these canals to their original condition. In these two petitions, the plaintiffs seek damages and other appropriate relief under the CZM Laws, including the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify and otherwise restore the affected coastal zone of the relevant Parish to its original condition, actual restoration of such coastal zone to its original condition, and the payment of reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.
The Company was served with the Cameron complaint in early May 2016 and with the Vermillion complaint in early September 2016. The Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources intervened in both the Cameron Parish suit and the Vermillion Parish suit. Shortly after the Complaints were filed, certain defendants removed the cases to the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In both cases, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand, but both Courts have stayed further proceedings on the motions to remand pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on similar jurisdictional issues in another matter. In March 2017, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit issued its ruling. Subsequently, the Vermillion Parish case and Cameron Parish case have both had their respective stays lifted. On July 3, 2017, the Magistrate issued her Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Remand for the Vermillion Parish case, recommending that the plaintiffs' motion to remand be granted. On July 21, 2017, a group of the defendants in the Vermillion Parish case filed objections to the Magistrate’s remand recommendation. No hearing on the remand motions has been set for the Cameron Parish case. The plaintiffs have granted all defendants an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaints until the District Courts rule on the motions to remand. The Company has not had the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of the allegations made in such complaints to their operations. Due to the early stages of these matters, management cannot determine the amount of loss, if any, that may result.
In addition, due to the nature of the Company’s business, it is, from time to time, involved in routine litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to its business activities, including workers’ compensation claims and employment related disputes. In the opinion of the Company’s management, none of the pending litigation, disputes or claims against the Company, if decided adversely, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||