Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

(13) CONTINGENCIES

XPLOR Energy Litigation – Pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) dated as of November 17, 2011 between our subsidiary XPLOR Energy SPV-I, Inc. (“XPLOR”) and Texas Petroleum Investment Company (“TPIC”), XPLOR sold to TPIC its oil and gas production assets and related operations at its Main Pass 35 field.  The closing of the transaction occurred on November 17, 2011 but was effective as of October 1, 2011.  On November 21, 2011, TPIC informed XPLOR that they had discovered defects in the salt water disposal system at Main Pass resulting in a salt water spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which had been reported to regulatory authorities. 

TPIC has filed a lawsuit against XPLOR in the 236th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas. The case is styled: Texas Petroleum Investment Company vs. XPLOR Energy SPV-1, Inc., Richard Cottle, Sarah Gasch, and John Hewitt. In the lawsuit, TPIC has asserted claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and indemnity related to its purchase of a production platform and associated assets from XPLOR. TPIC’s claims focus on alleged salt water system defects, related repairs to the facilities, and purported representations regarding the condition of the platform and associated assets. TPIC is seeking an unstated amount of alleged actual and exemplary damages as well as costs and fees. Although litigation is inherently uncertain, based upon the information known to date, we do not believe TPIC’s claims have merit. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2013, we did not record a contingency related to TPIC’s allegations as we do not currently believe that it is probable that HKN or XPLOR would be responsible for the costs, fees and damages allegedly incurred by TPIC as a result of its claims, the salt water disposal issues, or third party or governmental claims, if any, resulting therefrom.  We intend to vigorously defend any assertions related to the above lawsuit.  Based upon information known to date, the range of estimated loss if TPIC were to prevail on its claims is currently estimated not to exceed $2.5 million in damages, costs, and fees.

BWI Contingencies - See Note 2 – “BriteWater International, Inc.” for further discussion of BWI contingencies.

Main Pass Environmental Investigations – In January 2013, we were notified by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) of an investigation and potential penalty related to the TPIC allegations of improper salt water disposal at the Main Pass 35 field previously owned by our subsidiary XPLOR Energy SPV-I, Inc. At the time of filing this report on Form 10-Q, the LDEQ had not completed its investigation. In March 2013, we were advised that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was undertaking a criminal investigation of the salt water disposal incident. We are not aware of any damage to or spill from the salt water disposal system prior to TPIC’s ownership; accordingly, as of June 30, 2013, we did not record a contingency related to these investigations.

Point Au Fer Lawsuit – During the second quarter 2013, we learned HKN, Inc. was named in a lawsuit filed in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana by Point Au Fer, L.L.C., and The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans.  The case is styled: Point Au Fer, L.L.C., and The Roman Catholic Church of the  Archdiocese of New Orleans v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al, No. 169160. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have alleged that real property they own in Terrebonne Parish has been environmentally damaged as a result of oil and gas exploration activities of twenty different defendants.  The plaintiffs seek damages for testing and remediation of the property, property stigma, loss of use of land and lost profits, civil fruits for defendants trespass, land loss and subsidence, punitive or exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Per Louisiana law, no actual dollar amount of damages has been alleged in the Petition. With specific regard to HKN, Inc., out of over one hundred wells identified in the Petition, HKN, Inc. only drilled one well, the MA Smythe Nelson #1, which was a dry hole. The MA Smythe Nelson #1 was drilled on June 2, 1980 and plugged and abandoned on July 12, 1980.  We have and intend to continue to vigorously defend any assertions related to the above lawsuit. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the lawsuit at this time, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. Accordingly, at June 30, 2013, we did not record a contingency related to this matter.

Point a la Hache Lawsuit – During the second quarter 2013, we learned Xplor Energy Operating Company and Xplor Energy SPV-1, Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed in the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana. The case is styled: Catherine P. Alford et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al., Docket No. 60-479. In the lawsuit, eight plaintiffs have sued 25 defendants, alleging that they own and/or use a certain 4,480 acres located in the Pointe a la Hache oil and gas field.  Plaintiffs further allege that the property has been contaminated or otherwise damaged by oil and gas exploration and production activities.  Per Louisiana law, no actual dollar amount of damages has been alleged in the Petition. Responsive pleadings are due on August 21, 2013, but it is customary that this will be extended.  Investigation of the underlying factual background is in the preliminary stages but we intend to vigorously defend any assertions related to the above lawsuit. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the lawsuit at this time, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  Accordingly, at June 30, 2013, we did not record a contingency related to this matter.

Louisiana Limited Scope Audit – In April 2012, we received notice from the State of Louisiana’s Department of Revenue that our discontinued oil and gas subsidiary, XPLOR Energy Operating Company, was the subject of a limited scope sales tax audit focused on the company’s on-site use and consumption of lease gas in connection with its lease, gathering and pipeline operations from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. The Louisiana Department of Revenue issued a preliminary assessment, or “Notice of Proposed Tax Due,” preliminarily assessing sales tax of $194 thousand and related penalties and interest of $139 thousand, resulting in a total assessment of $333 thousand. In July 2012, we filed an audit protest with the Louisiana Department of Revenue challenging the preliminary assessment, as we do not agree with the legal basis of the assessment or the methodology in which the taxes were calculated and plan to vigorously defend our position. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the audit protest and preliminary assessment, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. Accordingly, at June 30, 2013, we did not record a contingency related to this matter. In the event of a negative outcome, the potential loss related to the audit and preliminary assessment is currently estimated not to exceed $333 thousand.