COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Bankruptcy matters

On July 22, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), SemGroup, L.P. and certain subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Also on July 22, 2008, SemGroup, L.P.'s Canadian subsidiaries filed for creditor protection in Canada. Later during 2008, certain other U.S. subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization. While in bankruptcy, SemGroup, L.P. filed a plan of reorganization with the court, which was confirmed on October 28, 2009 (the “Plan of Reorganization”). The Plan of Reorganization determined, among other things, how pre-Petition Date obligations would be settled, the equity structure of the reorganized company upon emergence, and the financing arrangements upon emergence. SemGroup Corporation emerged from bankruptcy protection on November 30, 2009 (the “Emergence Date”).


(a)	Confirmation order appeal

Luke Oil appeal. On October 21, 2009, Luke Oil Company, C&S Oil/Cross Properties, Inc., Wayne Thomas Oil and Gas and William R. Earnhardt Company (collectively, “Luke Oil”) filed an objection to the Plan of Reorganization “to the extent that the Plan of Reorganization may alter, impair, or otherwise adversely affect Luke Oil’s legal rights or other interests.” On October 28, 2009, the bankruptcy court overruled the Luke Oil objection and entered the confirmation order. On November 6, 2009, Luke Oil filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 23, 2009, Luke Oil’s appeal was docketed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. We filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as equitably moot. On May 21, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss Luke Oil's appeal of the confirmation order. On June 18, 2012, Luke Oil filed its Notice of Appeal, notifying the District Court and the parties to the lawsuit that it was appealing the decision of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 27, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion, and on September 18, 2013 issued a judgment, reversing the District Court’s dismissal of the confirmation order and remanding the case to the District Court for consideration on the merits of Luke Oil’s appeal of the confirmation order. On October 1, 2013, at the request of the parties, the District Court entered an order staying the case and referring it to a magistrate judge for mediation. While we believe that this action is without merit and are vigorously defending this matter on appeal, an adverse ruling on this action could have a material adverse impact on us.


(b)	Investigations

Around the time of our predecessor's bankruptcy filings, several governmental agencies launched investigations regarding the circumstances of the filings. The mandate and scope of these investigations were very broad and the investigations are ongoing.

Bankruptcy examiner. On October 14, 2008, the bankruptcy court appointed an examiner to (i) investigate the circumstances surrounding our predecessor's trading strategy prior to bankruptcy filings; (ii) investigate the circumstances surrounding certain insider transactions and the formation of SemGroup Energy Partners L.P. (a former subsidiary); (iii) investigate the circumstances surrounding the potential improper use of borrowed funds and funds generated from operations and the liquidation of assets to satisfy margin calls related to our predecessor's trading strategy and that of certain entities owned or controlled by former officers and directors of the general partner of SemGroup, L.P.; (iv) determine whether any directors, officers or employees of the general partner of SemGroup, L.P. participated in fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct, mismanagement, or irregularity in the management of our affairs; and (v) determine whether the SemGroup debtor estates have causes of action against current or former officers, directors, or employees of the general partner of SemGroup, L.P. arising from such participation. The examiner’s report was filed with the bankruptcy court on April 15, 2009.

Certain current and prior employees of the general partner of SemGroup, L.P. are referenced in the examiner’s report and the report’s conclusions may suggest possible civil or criminal liability on their part. To the extent such claims exist, they are property of a litigation trust that was established for the benefit of pre-petition creditors pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, and are not property of the reorganized SemGroup Corporation. This litigation trust is pursuing claims against certain former officers, at its own expense. We may incur expenses, which are not expected to be material, related to information and document requests of the litigation trust related to such claims. Any indemnification obligations to such officers by SemGroup, L.P. were discharged under the Plan of Reorganization.

CFTC. On June 19, 2008, we received a request for voluntary production from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Subsequent to the bankruptcy filings, the CFTC sent other requests for voluntary production. The CFTC has also served subpoenas upon us requiring us to produce various documents and for the depositions of our representatives. We continue to comply with the CFTC’s requests. We are unaware of any currently pending formal charges against us by the CFTC.


(c)	Claims reconciliation process

A large number of parties have made claims against us for obligations alleged to have been incurred prior to our predecessor's bankruptcy filing. On September 15, 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an order estimating the contingent, unliquidated and disputed claims and authorizing distributions to holders of allowed claims. Pursuant to that order we have begun making distributions to the claimants. We continue to attempt to settle unresolved claims.

Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, we committed to settle authorized and allowed bankruptcy claims by paying a specified amount of cash, issuing a specified number of warrants, and issuing a specified number of shares of SemGroup Corporation common stock. We do not believe the resolution of the remaining outstanding claims will exceed the total amount of consideration established under the Plan of Reorganization for all claimants; instead, the resolution of the remaining claims in some cases will impact the relative share of the established pool of common stock and warrants that certain claimants receive.

However, under certain circumstances we could be required to pay additional funds to settle the specified group of claims to be settled with cash. Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, a specified amount of restricted cash was set aside at the Emergence Date, which we expect to be sufficient to settle this group of claims. Since the Emergence Date, we have made significant progress in resolving these claims, and we continue to believe that the cash set aside at the Emergence Date will be sufficient to settle these claims. However, we have not yet reached a resolution of all of these claims, and if the total settlement amount of all of these claims exceeds the specified amount, we will be required to pay additional funds to satisfy the total settlement amount for this specified group of claims. If this were to become probable of occurring, we would be required to record a liability and a corresponding expense.

Blueknight claim

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. (“Blueknight”), which was formerly a subsidiary of SemGroup, together with other entities related to Blueknight, entered into a Shared Services Agreement on April 7, 2009, with SemCrude, L.P., now known as Rose Rock Midstream Crude, L.P. (“SemCrude”) and SemManagement, L.L.C. (which are currently subsidiaries of SemGroup). The services provided by SemCrude to Blueknight under this agreement included assisting Blueknight with movement of crude oil belonging to Blueknight’s customers and with the operation of Blueknight’s Oklahoma pipeline system and its Cushing, Oklahoma terminal. Under the subsequent amendments to the agreements beginning in May 2010, certain of these services were phased out, and Blueknight began to perform all services necessary for the movement of its crude oil and the operation of its Cushing terminal without SemCrude’s assistance.

In a letter dated August 18, 2011, Blueknight claimed that SemCrude owes Blueknight approximately 141,000 barrels of crude oil. We responded to Blueknight’s letter denying their charges and requesting documentation from Blueknight of its claim. On February 14, 2012, after months of interaction between the parties through which Blueknight was requested to substantiate its claim, Blueknight filed suit against SemCrude and other related companies in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. On May 1, 2012, the case was transferred to Tulsa County, Oklahoma. On July 2, 2012, the Tulsa County District Court appointed a Special Master to review terminal operations accounting records and determine whether 141,000 barrels of crude oil owned by Blueknight is missing after three months of operations in April through June, 2010. On June 11, 2013, the Special Master’s Report was filed with the District Court finding a shortage in Blueknight’s Cushing terminal and Oklahoma pipeline system of 148,000 barrels. However, after a review of all records created during that three month time period, the Special Master was unable to determine how the shortage might have occurred and she was unable to determine the ownership of the potential shortage.

We are currently seeking discovery in the District Court of documentation and testimony on the potential cause and the impact, if any, of the shortage found by the Special Master. Blueknight is resisting discovery and has asked for summary judgment against SemCrude and the other defendants for the entire terminal and pipeline system shortage. We will continue to defend our position; however, we cannot predict the outcome.

Environmental

We may from time to time experience leaks of petroleum products from our facilities and, as a result of which, we may incur remediation obligations or property damage claims. In addition, we are subject to numerous environmental regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the assessment of fines or penalties by regulatory authorities.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“the KDHE”) initiated discussions during our bankruptcy proceeding regarding six of our sites in Kansas (five owned by Crude and one owned by SemGas) that KDHE believes, based on their historical use, may have soil or groundwater contamination in excess of state standards. KDHE sought our agreement to undertake assessments of these sites to determine whether they are contaminated. We reached an agreement with KDHE on this matter and entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order with KDHE to conduct environmental assessments on the sites and to pay KDHE’s costs associated with their oversight of this matter. We have conducted Phase II investigations at all sites and results indicate that four of the sites have limited amounts of soil contamination that will require remediation and ground water contamination that may require further delineation and/or ongoing monitoring. Work plans have been submitted to, and approved by, the KDHE. We do not anticipate any penalties or fines for these historical sites.

A water pipeline break occurred at a SemCAMS facility during August 2010. This resulted in a spill of material that was predominantly salt water containing a small amount of hydrocarbons. The incident was investigated by Environment Canada and Alberta Environment. On February 14, 2012, charges were filed against SemCAMS by the Federal Government of Canada (Department of Fisheries) and the Province of Alberta (Alberta Environment) in connection with this incident. SemCAMS and the Federal and Provincial Crowns are discussing a resolution of the charges on specific terms. We expect that the matter will be finally resolved by the end of the year. We accrued a liability for estimated fines and environmental contributions of $0.4 million in December 2010, which we still carry on our books at September 30, 2013.

Other matters

We are party to various other claims, legal actions, and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of our management, the ultimate resolution of these claims, legal actions and complaints, after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage and other arrangements, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently uncertain, and estimates of our consolidated liabilities may change materially as circumstances develop.

Asset retirement obligations

We will be required to incur significant removal and restoration costs when we retire our natural gas gathering and processing facilities in Canada. We have recorded an asset retirement obligation liability of $42.1 million at September 30, 2013, which is included within other noncurrent liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. This amount was calculated using the $104.6 million cost we estimate we would incur to retire these facilities, discounted based on our risk-adjusted cost of borrowing and the estimated timing of remediation.

The calculation of the liability for an asset retirement obligation requires the use of significant estimates, including those related to the length of time before the assets will be retired, cost inflation over the assumed life of the assets, actual remediation activities to be required, and the rate at which such obligations should be discounted. Future changes in these estimates could result in material changes in the value of the recorded liability. In addition, future changes in laws or regulations could require us to record additional asset retirement obligations.

Our other segments may also be subject to removal and restoration costs upon retirement of their facilities. However, we are unable to predict when, or if, our pipelines, storage tanks and other facilities would become completely obsolete and require decommissioning. Accordingly, we have not recorded a liability or corresponding asset, as both the amount and timing of such potential future costs are indeterminable.

Purchase and sale commitments

We routinely enter into agreements to purchase and sell petroleum products at specified future dates. We account for derivatives at fair value with the exception of commitments which have been designated as normal purchases and sales for which we do not record assets or liabilities related to these agreements until the product is purchased or sold. At September 30, 2013, such commitments included the following (in thousands):



	Volume (Barrels)	Value
Fixed price purchases	202	$	20,324
Fixed price sales	330	$	34,749
Floating price purchases	18,016	$	1,781,247
Floating price sales	18,600	$	1,814,662

Certain of the commitments shown in the table above relate to agreements to purchase product from a counterparty and to sell a similar amount of product (in a different location) to the same counterparty. Many of the commitments shown in the table above are cancellable by either party, as long as notice is given within the time frame specified in the agreement (generally 30 to 120 days).

Our SemGas segment has a take or pay contractual obligation related to the fractionation of natural gas liquids. This obligation began in July 2011 and continues through June 2023, subsequent to the extension of the agreement in the second quarter of 2013. At September 30, 2013, approximately $25.8 thousand was due under the contract and the amount of future obligation is approximately $88.2 million. SemGas also enters into contracts under which we are responsible for marketing the majority of the gas and natural gas liquids produced by the counterparties to the agreements. The majority of SemGas’ revenues were generated from such contracts.

See Note 3 for commitments related to Glass Mountain Pipeline LLC and the White Cliffs expansion project.