Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities [Text Block]	Note 12 – Contingent Liabilities Reporting of Natural Gas-Related Information to Trade Publications Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and putative class actions against us, our former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices in 2000 and 2002 and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. We reached an agreement to settle two of the class actions, and on August 5, 2019, the final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered. We also reached an agreement to settle the individual action and on January 18, 2022, it was dismissed. Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court where the plaintiffs have re-urged their motion for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the Nevada federal district court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff’s petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court, where the plaintiffs re-urged their motion for class certification. Trial was scheduled to begin June 14, 2021, but the court struck the setting and has not reset it due to the pending motion for class certification. Because of the uncertainty around the remaining unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss 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 have exposure to future developments. Alaska Refinery Contamination Litigation We are involved in litigation arising from our ownership and operation of the North Pole Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, from 1980 until 2004, through our wholly owned subsidiaries Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and MAPCO Inc. We sold the refinery to Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., in 2004. The litigation involves three cases, with filing dates ranging from 2010 to 2014. The actions primarily arise from sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the refinery. A putative class action lawsuit was filed by James West in 2010 naming us, WAPI, and FHRA as defendants. We and FHRA 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 claim with James West. Certain claims by FHRA against us were resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court in our favor. FHRA’s claims against us for contractual indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off-site sulfolane were remanded to the Alaska Superior Court. The State of Alaska filed its action in March 2014, seeking damages. The City of North Pole (North Pole) filed its lawsuit in November 2014, seeking past and future damages, as well as punitive damages. Both we and WAPI asserted counterclaims against the State of Alaska and North Pole, and cross-claims against FHRA. FHRA has also filed cross-claims against us. The underlying factual basis and claims in the cases are similar and may duplicate exposure. As such, in February 2017, the three cases were consolidated into one action in state court containing the remaining claims from the James West case and those of the State of Alaska and North Pole. The State of Alaska later announced the discovery of additional contaminants per- and polyfluoralkyl (PFOS and PFOA) offsite of the refinery, and the court permitted the State of Alaska to amend its complaint to add a claim for offsite PFOS/PFOA contamination. The court subsequently remanded the offsite PFOS/PFOA claims to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for investigation and stayed the claims pending their potential resolution at the administrative agency. Several trial dates encompassing all three cases have been scheduled and stricken. In the summer of 2019, the court deconsolidated the cases for purposes of trial. A bench trial on all claims except North Pole’s claims began in October 2019. In January 2020, the Alaska Superior Court issued its Memorandum of Decision finding in favor of the State of Alaska and FHRA, with the total incurred and potential future damages estimated to be $86 million. The court found that FHRA is not entitled to contractual indemnification from us because FHRA contributed to the sulfolane contamination. On March 23, 2020, the court entered final judgment in the case. Filing deadlines were stayed until May 1, 2020. However, on April 21, 2020, we filed a Notice of Appeal. We also filed post-judgment motions including a Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. These post-trial motions were resolved with the court’s denial of the last motion on June 11, 2020. Our Statement of Points on Appeal was filed on July 13, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the court stayed the North Pole’s case pending resolution of the appeal in the State of Alaska and FHRA case. On December 23, 2020, we filed our opening brief on appeal. Oral argument was held on December 15, 2021. We have recorded an accrued liability in the amount of our estimate of the probable loss. It is reasonably possible that we may not be successful on appeal and could ultimately pay up to the amount of judgment. Royalty Matters Certain of our customers, including Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake), have been named in various lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties and claiming, among other things, violations of anti-trust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases filed in Pennsylvania based on allegations that we improperly participated with Chesapeake in causing the alleged royalty underpayments. We believe that the claims asserted are subject to indemnity obligations owed to us by Chesapeake. Chesapeake has reached a settlement to resolve substantially all Pennsylvania royalty cases pending, which settlement applies to both Chesapeake and us. The settlement does not require any contribution from us. On August 23, 2021, the court approved the settlement, but two objectors filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Litigation Against Energy Transfer and Related Parties On April 6, 2016, we filed suit in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer) and LE GP, LLC (the general partner for Energy Transfer) alleging willful and material breaches of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (ETE Merger Agreement) with Energy Transfer resulting from the private offering by Energy Transfer on March 8, 2016, of Series A Convertible Preferred Units (Special Offering) to certain Energy Transfer insiders and other accredited investors. The suit seeks, among other things, an injunction ordering the defendants to unwind the Special Offering and to specifically perform their obligations under the ETE Merger Agreement. On April 19, 2016, we filed an amended complaint seeking the same relief. On May 3, 2016, Energy Transfer and LE GP, LLC filed an answer and counterclaims. On May 13, 2016, we filed a separate complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer, LE GP, LLC and the other Energy Transfer affiliates that are parties to the ETE Merger Agreement, alleging material breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement for failing to cooperate and use necessary efforts to obtain a tax opinion required under the ETE Merger Agreement (Tax Opinion) and for otherwise failing to use necessary efforts to consummate the merger under the ETE Merger Agreement wherein we would be merged with and into the newly formed Energy Transfer Corp LP (ETC) (ETC Merger). The suit sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing Energy Transfer from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the ETE Merger Agreement due to any failure to obtain the Tax Opinion. The Court of Chancery coordinated the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits. On May 20, 2016, the Energy Transfer defendants filed amended affirmative defenses and verified counterclaims in the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits, alleging certain breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement by us and seeking, among other things, a declaration that we were not entitled to specific performance, that Energy Transfer could terminate the ETC Merger, and that Energy Transfer is entitled to a $1.48 billion termination fee. On June 24, 2016, following a two-day trial, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying our requested relief in the Tax Opinion suit. The court did not rule on the substance of our claims related to the Special Offering or on the substance of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims. On June 27, 2016, we filed an appeal of the court’s decision with the Supreme Court of Delaware, seeking reversal and remand to pursue damages. On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery’s ruling. On March 30, 2017, we filed a motion for reargument with the Supreme Court of Delaware, which was denied on April 5, 2017. On September 16, 2016, we filed an amended complaint with the Court of Chancery seeking damages for breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement by defendants. On September 23, 2016, Energy Transfer filed a second amended and supplemental affirmative defenses and verified counterclaim with the Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee due to our alleged breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement. On December 1, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss certain of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims, including its claim seeking payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee. On December 8, 2017, Energy Transfer filed a motion for reargument, which the Court of Chancery denied on April 16, 2018. The Court of Chancery originally scheduled trial for May 20 through May 24, 2019; the court struck that setting and reset trial to occur in 2020. All 2020 trial settings were struck due to COVID-19. Trial was held May 10 through May 17, 2021. Post-trial argument occurred September 16, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the court entered judgment in our favor in the amount of $410 million, plus interest at the contractual rate, and our reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The judgment may be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. Environmental Matters We are a participant in certain environmental activities in various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations, and/or 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or 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, 2022, we have accrued liabilities totaling $30 million for these matters, as discussed below. Estimates of the most likely costs of cleanup are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies, or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. At March 31, 2022, certain assessment studies were still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield different estimates of most likely costs. Therefore, the actual costs incurred will depend on the final amount, type, and extent of contamination discovered at these sites, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA or other governmental authorities, and other factors. The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely propose and promulgate new rules and issue updated guidance to existing rules. These rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine and combustion turbine maximum achievable control technology, reviews and updates to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and rules for new and existing source performance standards for volatile organic compound and methane. We continuously monitor these regulatory changes and how they may impact our operations. Implementation of new or modified regulations may result in impacts to our operations and increase the cost of additions to Property, plant, and equipment – net in our Consolidated Balance Sheet for both new and existing facilities in affected areas; however, due to regulatory uncertainty on final rule content and applicability timeframes, we are unable to reasonably estimate the cost of these regulatory impacts at this time. 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, 2022, we have accrued liabilities of $4 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, 2022, we have accrued liabilities totaling $8 million for these costs. Former operations 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, 2022, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $18 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, 2022, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims against us involving the above-described 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 that are incidental to our operations, none of which are expected to be material to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. 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.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and putative class actions against us, our former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices in 2000 and 2002 and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court where the plaintiffs have re-urged their motion for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the Nevada federal district court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff’s petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court, where the plaintiffs re-urged their motion for class certification.

Because of the uncertainty around the remaining unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss 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 have exposure to future developments.

We are involved in litigation arising from our ownership and operation of the North Pole Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, from 1980 until 2004, through our wholly owned subsidiaries Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and MAPCO Inc. We sold the refinery to Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., in 2004. The litigation involves three cases, with filing dates ranging from 2010 to 2014. The actions primarily arise from sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the refinery. A putative class action lawsuit was filed by James West in 2010 naming us, WAPI, and FHRA as defendants. We and FHRA 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 claim with James West. Certain claims by FHRA against us were resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court in our favor. FHRA’s claims against us for contractual indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off-site sulfolane were remanded to the Alaska Superior Court. The State of Alaska filed its action in March 2014, seeking damages. The City of North Pole (North Pole) filed its lawsuit in November 2014, seeking past and future damages, as well as punitive damages. Both we and WAPI asserted counterclaims against the State of Alaska and North Pole, and cross-claims against FHRA. FHRA has also filed cross-claims against us.

The underlying factual basis and claims in the cases are similar and may duplicate exposure. As such, in February 2017, the three cases were consolidated into one action in state court containing the remaining claims from the James West case and those of the State of Alaska and North Pole. The State of Alaska later announced the discovery of additional contaminants per- and polyfluoralkyl (PFOS and PFOA) offsite of the refinery, and the court permitted the State of Alaska to amend its complaint to add a claim for offsite PFOS/PFOA contamination. The court subsequently remanded the offsite PFOS/PFOA claims to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for investigation and stayed the claims pending their potential resolution at the administrative agency. Several trial dates encompassing all three cases have been scheduled and stricken. In the summer of 2019, the court deconsolidated the cases for purposes of trial. A bench trial on all claims except North Pole’s claims began in October 2019.

In January 2020, the Alaska Superior Court issued its Memorandum of Decision finding in favor of the State of Alaska and FHRA, with the total incurred and potential future damages estimated to be $86 million. The court found that FHRA is not entitled to contractual indemnification from us because FHRA contributed to the sulfolane contamination. On March 23, 2020, the court entered final judgment in the case. Filing deadlines were stayed until May 1, 2020. However, on April 21, 2020, we filed a Notice of Appeal. We also filed post-judgment motions including a Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. These post-trial motions were resolved with the court’s denial of the last motion on June 11, 2020. Our Statement of Points on Appeal was filed on July 13, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the court stayed the North Pole’s case pending resolution of the appeal in the State of Alaska and FHRA case. On December 23, 2020, we filed our opening brief on appeal. Oral argument was held on December 15, 2021. We have recorded an accrued liability in the amount of our estimate of the probable loss. It is reasonably possible that we may not be successful on appeal and could ultimately pay up to the amount of judgment.

Certain of our customers, including Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake), have been named in various lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties and claiming, among other things, violations of anti-trust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases filed in Pennsylvania based on allegations that we improperly participated with Chesapeake in causing the

alleged royalty underpayments. We believe that the claims asserted are subject to indemnity obligations owed to us by Chesapeake. Chesapeake has reached a settlement to resolve substantially all Pennsylvania royalty cases pending, which settlement applies to both Chesapeake and us. The settlement does not require any contribution from us. On August 23, 2021, the court approved the settlement, but two objectors filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On April 6, 2016, we filed suit in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer) and LE GP, LLC (the general partner for Energy Transfer) alleging willful and material breaches of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (ETE Merger Agreement) with Energy Transfer resulting from the private offering by Energy Transfer on March 8, 2016, of Series A Convertible Preferred Units (Special Offering) to certain Energy Transfer insiders and other accredited investors. The suit seeks, among other things, an injunction ordering the defendants to unwind the Special Offering and to specifically perform their obligations under the ETE Merger Agreement. On April 19, 2016, we filed an amended complaint seeking the same relief. On May 3, 2016, Energy Transfer and LE GP, LLC filed an answer and counterclaims.

On May 13, 2016, we filed a separate complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against Energy Transfer, LE GP, LLC and the other Energy Transfer affiliates that are parties to the ETE Merger Agreement, alleging material breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement for failing to cooperate and use necessary efforts to obtain a tax opinion required under the ETE Merger Agreement (Tax Opinion) and for otherwise failing to use necessary efforts to consummate the merger under the ETE Merger Agreement wherein we would be merged with and into the newly formed Energy Transfer Corp LP (ETC) (ETC Merger). The suit sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment and injunction preventing Energy Transfer from terminating or otherwise avoiding its obligations under the ETE Merger Agreement due to any failure to obtain the Tax Opinion.

The Court of Chancery coordinated the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits. On May 20, 2016, the Energy Transfer defendants filed amended affirmative defenses and verified counterclaims in the Special Offering and Tax Opinion suits, alleging certain breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement by us and seeking, among other things, a declaration that we were not entitled to specific performance, that Energy Transfer could terminate the ETC Merger, and that Energy Transfer is entitled to a $1.48 billion termination fee. On June 24, 2016, following a two-day trial, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying our requested relief in the Tax Opinion suit. The court did not rule on the substance of our claims related to the Special Offering or on the substance of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims. On June 27, 2016, we filed an appeal of the court’s decision with the Supreme Court of Delaware, seeking reversal and remand to pursue damages. On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery’s ruling. On March 30, 2017, we filed a motion for reargument with the Supreme Court of Delaware, which was denied on April 5, 2017.

On September 16, 2016, we filed an amended complaint with the Court of Chancery seeking damages for breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement by defendants. On September 23, 2016, Energy Transfer filed a second amended and supplemental affirmative defenses and verified counterclaim with the Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee due to our alleged breaches of the ETE Merger Agreement. On December 1, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss certain of Energy Transfer’s counterclaims, including its claim seeking payment of the $1.48 billion termination fee. On December 8, 2017, Energy Transfer filed a motion for reargument, which the Court of Chancery denied on April 16, 2018. The Court of Chancery originally scheduled trial for May 20 through May 24, 2019; the court struck that setting and reset trial to occur in 2020. All 2020 trial settings were struck due to COVID-19. Trial was held May 10 through May 17, 2021. Post-trial argument occurred September 16, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the court entered judgment in our favor in the amount of $410 million, plus interest at the contractual rate, and our reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The judgment may be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

these sites in a coordinated effort with other potentially responsible parties, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or 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, 2022, we have accrued liabilities totaling $30 million for these matters, as discussed below. Estimates of the most likely costs of cleanup are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies, or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. At March 31, 2022, certain assessment studies were still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield different estimates of most likely costs. Therefore, the actual costs incurred will depend on the final amount, type, and extent of contamination discovered at these sites, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA or other governmental authorities, and other factors.

The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely propose and promulgate new rules and issue updated guidance to existing rules. These rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine and combustion turbine maximum achievable control technology, reviews and updates to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and rules for new and existing source performance standards for volatile organic compound and methane. We continuously monitor these regulatory changes and how they may impact our operations. Implementation of new or modified regulations may result in impacts to our operations and increase the cost of additions to Property, plant, and equipment – net in our Consolidated Balance Sheet for both new and existing facilities in affected areas; however, due to regulatory uncertainty on final rule content and applicability timeframes, we are unable to reasonably estimate the cost of these regulatory impacts at this time.

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, 2022, we have accrued liabilities of $4 million for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates.

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.

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, 2022, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims against us involving the above-described 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.