Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Litigation West Fertilizer Co. In April 2013, there was a fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. fertilizer storage and distribution facility in West, Texas. According to published reports, 15 people were killed and approximately 200 people were injured in the incident, and the fire and explosion damaged or destroyed a number of homes and buildings around the facility. We have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas by the City of West, individual residents of the County and other parties seeking recovery for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the explosion. Plaintiffs allege various theories of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty under Texas law. Although we do not own or operate the facility or directly sell our products to West Fertilizer Co., products we have manufactured and sold to others have been delivered to the facility and may have been stored at the West facility at the time of the incident. Based on our assessment of the pending lawsuits, we believe that we have strong legal and factual defenses to the claims and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the pending lawsuits and any other claims brought against us in connection with the incident. Other Litigation From time to time, we are subject to ordinary, routine legal proceedings related to the usual conduct of our business, including proceedings regarding public utility and transportation rates, environmental matters, taxes and permits relating to the operations of our various plants and facilities. Based on the information available as of the date of this filing, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these routine matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Louisiana Environmental Matters Clean Air Act—Section 185 Fee Our Donaldsonville nitrogen complex is located in a five-parish region near Baton Rouge, Louisiana that, as of 2005, was designated as being in "severe" nonattainment with respect to the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone (the 1-hour ozone standard) pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). Section 185 of the Act requires states, in their state implementation plans, to levy a fee (Section 185 fee) on major stationary sources (such as the Donaldsonville complex) located in a severe nonattainment area that did not meet the 1-hour ozone standard by November 30, 2005. The fee was to be assessed for each calendar year (beginning in 2006) until the area achieved compliance with the ozone NAAQS. Prior to the imposition of Section 185 fees, the EPA adopted a new ozone standard (the 8-hour ozone standard) and rescinded the 1-hour ozone standard. The Baton Rouge area was designated as a "moderate" nonattainment area with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. However, because Section 185 fees had never been assessed prior to the rescission of the 1-hour ozone standard (rescinded prior to the November 30, 2005 ozone attainment deadline), the EPA concluded in a 2004 rulemaking implementing the 8-hour ozone standard that the Act did not require states to assess Section 185 fees. As a result, Section 185 fees were not assessed against us and other companies located in the Baton Rouge area. In 2006, the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA's position and held that Section 185 fees were controls that must be maintained and fees should have been assessed under the Act. In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case for review, making the appellate court's decision final. In July 2011, the EPA approved a revision to Louisiana's air pollution program that eliminated the requirement for Baton Rouge area companies to pay Section 185 fees, based on Baton Rouge's ultimate attainment of the 1- hour standard through permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA's approval of the Louisiana air program revision became effective on August 8, 2011. However, a recent decision by the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar, but perhaps distinguishable, EPA guidance document regarding alternatives to Section 185 fees. At this time, the viability of EPA's approval of Louisiana's elimination of Section 185 fees is uncertain. Regardless of the approach ultimately adopted by the EPA, we expect that it is likely to be challenged by the environmental community, the states, and/or affected industries. Therefore, the costs associated with compliance with the Act cannot be determined at this time, and we cannot reasonably estimate the impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Furthermore, the area has seen significant reductions in ozone levels, attributable to federal and state regulations and community involvement. Preliminary ozone design values computed for the Baton Rouge nonattainment area suggest the area has achieved attainment with the 2008 8‑hour ozone standard. A determination from EPA was issued on April 4, 2014 indicating that the Baton Rouge area is currently attaining the 2008 8‑hour ozone standard. The determination is based on a recent review of air quality data from 2011‑2013. Additional revisions to the ozone NAAQS, like the proposed rule that would strengthen the ozone standard that was announced on November 25, 2014, may affect the longevity and long-term consequences of this determination. Clean Air Act Information Request On February 26, 2009, we received a letter from the EPA under Section 114 of the Act requesting information and copies of records relating to compliance with New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards at our Donaldsonville facility. We have completed the submittal of all requested information. There has been no further contact from the EPA regarding this matter. Florida Environmental Matters On March 17, 2014, we completed the sale of our phosphate mining and manufacturing business, which was located in Florida, to Mosaic. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, Mosaic has assumed the following environmental matters and we have agreed to indemnify Mosaic with respect to losses arising out of the matters below, subject to a maximum indemnification cap and the other terms of the Purchase Agreement. Clean Air Act Notice of Violation We received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA by letter dated June 16, 2010, alleging that we violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Clean Air Act regulations relating to certain projects undertaken at the former Plant City, Florida facility's sulfuric acid plants. This NOV further alleges that the actions that are the basis for the alleged PSD violations also resulted in violations of Title V air operating permit regulations. Finally, the NOV alleges that we failed to comply with certain compliance dates established by hazardous air pollutant regulations for phosphoric acid manufacturing plants and phosphate fertilizer production plants. We had several meetings with the EPA with respect to this matter prior to our sale of the phosphate mining and manufacturing business in March 2014. We do not know at this time if this matter will be settled prior to initiation of formal legal action. We cannot estimate the potential penalties, fines or other expenditures, if any, that may result from the Clean Air Act NOV and, therefore, we cannot determine if the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. EPCRA/CERCLA Notice of Violation By letter dated July 6, 2010, the EPA issued a NOV to us alleging violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in connection with the former Plant City facility. EPCRA requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use of certain toxic chemicals. The NOV also included an allegation that we violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by failing to file a timely notification relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride above applicable reportable quantities. We do not know at this time if this matter will be settled prior to initiation of formal legal action. We do not expect that penalties or fines, if any, that may arise out of the EPCRA/CERCLA matter will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other CERCLA/Remediation Matters From time to time, we receive notices from governmental agencies or third parties alleging that we are a potentially responsible party at certain cleanup sites under CERCLA or other environmental cleanup laws. In 2011, we received a notice from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) that alleged that we were a potentially responsible party for the cleanup of a former phosphate mine site we owned in the late 1950s and early 1960s located in Georgetown Canyon, Idaho. The current owner of the property and a former mining contractor received similar notices for the site. In 2014, we and the current property owner entered into a Consent Order with IDEQ and the U.S. Forest Service to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the site. We are not able to estimate at this time our potential liability, if any, with respect to the cleanup of the site. However, based on currently available information, we do not expect that any remedial or financial obligations to which we may be subject involving this or other cleanup sites will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

Litigation

West Fertilizer Co.

In April 2013, there was a fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. fertilizer storage and distribution facility in West, Texas. According to published reports, 15 people were killed and approximately 200 people were injured in the incident, and the fire and explosion damaged or destroyed a number of homes and buildings around the facility. We have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas by the City of West, individual residents of the County and other parties seeking recovery for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the explosion. Plaintiffs allege various theories of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty under Texas law. Although we do not own or operate the facility or directly sell our products to West Fertilizer Co., products we have manufactured and sold to others have been delivered to the facility and may have been stored at the West facility at the time of the incident. Based on our assessment of the pending lawsuits, we believe that we have strong legal and factual defenses to the claims and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the pending lawsuits and any other claims brought against us in connection with the incident.

Other Litigation

From time to time, we are subject to ordinary, routine legal proceedings related to the usual conduct of our business, including proceedings regarding public utility and transportation rates, environmental matters, taxes and permits relating to the operations of our various plants and facilities. Based on the information available as of the date of this filing, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these routine matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental

Louisiana Environmental Matters

Clean Air Act—Section 185 Fee

Our Donaldsonville nitrogen complex is located in a five-parish region near Baton Rouge, Louisiana that, as of 2005, was designated as being in "severe" nonattainment with respect to the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone (the 1-hour ozone standard) pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). Section 185 of the Act requires states, in their state implementation plans, to levy a fee (Section 185 fee) on major stationary sources (such as the Donaldsonville complex) located in a severe nonattainment area that did not meet the 1-hour ozone standard by November 30, 2005. The fee was to be assessed for each calendar year (beginning in 2006) until the area achieved compliance with the ozone NAAQS.

Prior to the imposition of Section 185 fees, the EPA adopted a new ozone standard (the 8-hour ozone standard) and rescinded the 1-hour ozone standard. The Baton Rouge area was designated as a "moderate" nonattainment area with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. However, because Section 185 fees had never been assessed prior to the rescission of the 1-hour ozone standard (rescinded prior to the November 30, 2005 ozone attainment deadline), the EPA concluded in a 2004 rulemaking implementing the 8-hour ozone standard that the Act did not require states to assess Section 185 fees. As a result, Section 185 fees were not assessed against us and other companies located in the Baton Rouge area.

In 2006, the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the EPA's position and held that Section 185 fees were controls that must be maintained and fees should have been assessed under the Act. In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case for review, making the appellate court's decision final.

In July 2011, the EPA approved a revision to Louisiana's air pollution program that eliminated the requirement for Baton Rouge area companies to pay Section 185 fees, based on Baton Rouge's ultimate attainment of the 1- hour standard through permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA's approval of the Louisiana air program revision became effective on August 8, 2011. However, a recent decision by the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar, but perhaps distinguishable, EPA guidance document regarding alternatives to Section 185 fees. At this time, the viability of EPA's approval of Louisiana's elimination of Section 185 fees is uncertain. Regardless of the approach ultimately adopted by the EPA, we expect that it is likely to be challenged by the environmental community, the states, and/or affected industries. Therefore, the costs associated with compliance with the Act cannot be determined at this time, and we cannot reasonably estimate the impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Furthermore, the area has seen significant reductions in ozone levels, attributable to federal and state regulations and community involvement. Preliminary ozone design values computed for the Baton Rouge nonattainment area suggest the area has achieved attainment with the 2008 8‑hour ozone standard. A determination from EPA was issued on April 4, 2014 indicating that the Baton Rouge area is currently attaining the 2008 8‑hour ozone standard. The determination is based on a recent review of air quality data from 2011‑2013. Additional revisions to the ozone NAAQS, like the proposed rule that would strengthen the ozone standard that was announced on November 25, 2014, may affect the longevity and long-term consequences of this determination.

Clean Air Act Information Request

On February 26, 2009, we received a letter from the EPA under Section 114 of the Act requesting information and copies of records relating to compliance with New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards at our Donaldsonville facility. We have completed the submittal of all requested information. There has been no further contact from the EPA regarding this matter.

Florida Environmental Matters

On March 17, 2014, we completed the sale of our phosphate mining and manufacturing business, which was located in Florida, to Mosaic. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, Mosaic has assumed the following environmental matters and we have agreed to indemnify Mosaic with respect to losses arising out of the matters below, subject to a maximum indemnification cap and the other terms of the Purchase Agreement.

Clean Air Act Notice of Violation

We received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA by letter dated June 16, 2010, alleging that we violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Clean Air Act regulations relating to certain projects undertaken at the former Plant City, Florida facility's sulfuric acid plants. This NOV further alleges that the actions that are the basis for the alleged PSD violations also resulted in violations of Title V air operating permit regulations. Finally, the NOV alleges that we failed to comply with certain compliance dates established by hazardous air pollutant regulations for phosphoric acid manufacturing plants and phosphate fertilizer production plants. We had several meetings with the EPA with respect to this matter prior to our sale of the phosphate mining and manufacturing business in March 2014. We do not know at this time if this matter will be settled prior to initiation of formal legal action.

We cannot estimate the potential penalties, fines or other expenditures, if any, that may result from the Clean Air Act NOV and, therefore, we cannot determine if the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

EPCRA/CERCLA Notice of Violation

By letter dated July 6, 2010, the EPA issued a NOV to us alleging violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in connection with the former Plant City facility. EPCRA requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use of certain toxic chemicals. The NOV also included an allegation that we violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by failing to file a timely notification relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride above applicable reportable quantities. We do not know at this time if this matter will be settled prior to initiation of formal legal action.

We do not expect that penalties or fines, if any, that may arise out of the EPCRA/CERCLA matter will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other

CERCLA/Remediation Matters

From time to time, we receive notices from governmental agencies or third parties alleging that we are a potentially responsible party at certain cleanup sites under CERCLA or other environmental cleanup laws. In 2011, we received a notice from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) that alleged that we were a potentially responsible party for the cleanup of a former phosphate mine site we owned in the late 1950s and early 1960s located in Georgetown Canyon, Idaho. The current owner of the property and a former mining contractor received similar notices for the site. In 2014, we and the current property owner entered into a Consent Order with IDEQ and the U.S. Forest Service to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the site. We are not able to estimate at this time our potential liability, if any, with respect to the cleanup of the site. However, based on currently available information, we do not expect that any remedial or financial obligations to which we may be subject involving this or other cleanup sites will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.