Note 12 – Contingent Liabilities

Indemnification of WPX

We have agreed to indemnify our former affiliate, WPX and its subsidiaries, related to the following matter.

Reporting of natural gas-related information to trade publications

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX’s joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs’ state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived state law claims in multi-district litigation against WPX and others, rejecting arguments that the claims are preempted by the Natural Gas Act. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the cases to the Nevada district court for further proceedings. Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items and our related indemnification obligation could result in future charges that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to future developments in this matter.

Other Legal Matters

Geismar Incident

As a result of the previously discussed Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious. We are addressing the following matters in connection with the Geismar Incident.

On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility on June 24 through 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA’s preliminary determinations about the facility’s documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations.

Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed against us. The first trial for certain plaintiffs claiming approximately $45 million in personal injury damages is set to begin on June 15, 2015 in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. For these and all other unsettled lawsuits, in the event of an adverse ruling, we intend to appeal and we expect any ultimate losses to be covered by our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate annual limit of $610 million and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence. For these matters, we believe it is reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation concerning defenses to liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs’ damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss at this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by insurance.

Alaska refinery contamination litigation

In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other’s claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA’s claims and entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court’s decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount.

On November 26, 2014, the City of North Pole (North Pole) filed suit in Alaska state court in Fairbanks against FHRA and WAPI, alleging nuisance and violations of municipal and state statutes based upon the sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the North Pole refinery. North Pole claims an unspecified amount of past and future damages as well as punitive damages against WAPI.

Independent of the litigation matter described in the preceding paragraphs, in 2013, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicated that it views FHRA and us as responsible parties, and that it intended to enter a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work outside the refinery’s boundaries. On March 6, 2014, the State of Alaska filed suit against FHRA and us in state court in Fairbanks seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the sulfolane contamination. On May 5, 2014, FHRA filed cross-claims against us in the State of Alaska suit, and FHRA also seeks injunctive relief and damages. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination and the ultimate cost of remediation and division of costs among the potentially responsible parties, we are unable to estimate a range of exposure at this time.

Royalty Matters

Certain of our customers, including one major customer, have been named in various lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. In certain of these cases, we have also been named as a defendant based on allegations that we improperly participated with that major customer in causing the alleged royalty underpayments. We have also received subpoenas from the United States Department of Justice and the Pennsylvania Attorney General requesting documents relating to the agreements between us and our major customer and calculations of the major customer’s royalty payments. We believe that the claims asserted to date are subject to indemnity obligations owed to us by that major customer. Due to the preliminary status of the cases, we are unable to estimate a range of liability at this time.

Environmental Matters

We are a participant in certain environmental activities in various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations and remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently do not own. We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated effort with other potentially responsible parties, the EPA, and other governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities and solely responsible in others. Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred, or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental laws. As of March 31, 2015, we have accrued liabilities totaling $43 million for these matters, as discussed below. Our accrual reflects the most likely costs of cleanup, which are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. Certain assessment studies are still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield significantly different estimates of most likely costs. Any incremental amount in excess of amounts currently accrued cannot be reasonably estimated at this time due to uncertainty about the actual number of contaminated sites ultimately identified, the actual amount and extent of contamination discovered and the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA and other governmental authorities.

The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely promulgate and propose new rules, and issue updated guidance to existing rules. More recent rules and rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine maximum achievable control technology, new air quality standards for ground level ozone, one hour nitrogen dioxide emission limits, and new air quality standards impacting storage vessels, pressure valves, and compressors. We are unable to estimate the costs of asset additions or modifications necessary to comply with these new regulations due to uncertainty created by the various legal challenges to these regulations and the need for further specific regulatory guidance.

Continuing operations

Our interstate gas pipelines are involved in remediation activities related to certain facilities and locations for polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous substances. These activities have involved the EPA and various state environmental authorities, resulting in our identification as a potentially responsible party at various Superfund waste sites. At March 31, 2015, we have accrued liabilities of $10 million for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates.

We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination. At March 31, 2015, we have accrued liabilities totaling $8 million for these costs.

Former operations, including operations classified as discontinued

We have potential obligations in connection with assets and businesses we no longer operate. These potential obligations include remediation activities at the direction of federal and state environmental authorities and the indemnification of the purchasers of certain of these assets and businesses for environmental and other liabilities existing at the time the sale was consummated. Our responsibilities relate to the operations of the assets and businesses described below.


•	Former agricultural fertilizer and chemical operations and former retail petroleum and refining operations;


•	Former petroleum products and natural gas pipelines;


•	Former petroleum refining facilities;


•	Former exploration and production and mining operations;


•	Former electricity and natural gas marketing and trading operations.

At March 31, 2015, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $25 million related to these matters.

Other Divestiture Indemnifications

Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax, historic litigation, personal injury, property damage, environmental matters, right of way and other representations that we have provided.

At March 31, 2015, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims against us involving the indemnities; thus, we do not expect any of the indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a material impact on our future financial position. Any claim for indemnity brought against us in the future may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the claim is made.

In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are pending against us which are incidental to our operations.

Summary

We have disclosed our estimated range of reasonably possible losses for certain matters above, as well as all significant matters for which we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. We estimate that for all other matters for which we are able to reasonably estimate a range of loss, our aggregate reasonably possible losses beyond amounts accrued are immaterial to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity and financial position. These calculations have been made without consideration of any potential recovery from third parties.