Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	(12) CONTINGENCIES XPLOR Energy Litigation – Pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) dated as of November 17, 2011 between our subsidiary XPLOR Energy SPV-1, 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. We intend to vigorously defend any asserts related to the above lawsuit. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2014, we did not record a contingency related to TPIC’s allegations. 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-1, Inc. In March 2014, a telephone status conference was held with the LDEQ and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) handling this matter. Counsel for the LDEQ requested the ALJ to pass the matter for six (6) months citing the ongoing litigation with TPIC. The ALJ agreed to the LDEQ’s request and another status conference has been set for October 2014. In March 2013, we were advised that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was undertaking a criminal investigation of the salt water disposal incident. In June 2014, we began discussions with the U. S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans, Louisiana with regard to resolving any potential allegations against XPLOR. Discussions are ongoing and we anticipate meeting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in August. Based upon information known to date, the range of estimated payment in settlement of alleged claims is currently estimated not to exceed $3.3 million. We are not aware of any damage from the salt water disposal system prior to TPIC’s ownership and cannot estimate a probable settlement amount at this time. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2014, 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, 2014, 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 25^th 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. On March 18, 2014, prior to the hearing on defendants’ exceptions, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The court signed the order dismissing all claims against the defendants on March 27, 2014, and the case is now closed. Accordingly, at June 30, 2014, we did not record a contingency related to this matter. SLFPA-E Litigation – Plaintiffs South Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East (“SLFPA-E”) filed this lawsuit in Louisiana state court against over 90 oil and gas and pipeline companies. Generally the lawsuit alleges that activities by defendants—primarily but not exclusively the dredging of canals—have made it more difficult for the SLFPA-E to protect the New Orleans metropolitan area from flooding. Defendants removed the case to federal court and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On June 27, 2014, the Judge issued an Order denying remand to state court. A status conference was held on August 6, 2014. At that conference, the Court set a hearing date of November 12, 2014 for all Rule 12(b) defense motions and plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court further stated that another status conference will be held two (2) weeks after her ruling on the Motions that are filed. Until that time, there will be no discovery or, other than the motions that have been specifically allowed to be filed, any other activity in the case. The petition alleges that HKN, Inc. is "by virtue of [one or more of] mergers, acquisitions, name changes, etc., responsible for" the actions of Tejas Power Corporation, which is alleged to have obtained in the 1980s certain dredging permits and rights of way. HKN, Inc. disputes that it is responsible for any actions of Tejas Power Corporation. The public record appears to suggest that Tejas Power Corporation may have been a subsidiary of Harken Oil and Gas, Incorporated (a previous name of HKN, Inc.) for a few years in the 1980s and 1990s. However, there appears to be nothing to indicate that HKN, Inc. would have liability for the actions of Tejas Power Corporation, which continued to exist after HKN, Inc. no longer had any interest in Tejas Power Corporation. 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, 2014, 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 $151 thousand, resulting in a total assessment of $345 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, 2014, 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 $345 thousand.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(12) CONTINGENCIES

XPLOR Energy Litigation – Pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) dated as of November 17, 2011 between our subsidiary XPLOR Energy SPV-1, 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. We intend to vigorously defend any asserts related to the above lawsuit. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2014, we did not record a contingency related to TPIC’s allegations. 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-1, Inc. In March 2014, a telephone status conference was held with the LDEQ and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) handling this matter. Counsel for the LDEQ requested the ALJ to pass the matter for six (6) months citing the ongoing litigation with TPIC. The ALJ agreed to the LDEQ’s request and another status conference has been set for October 2014.

In March 2013, we were advised that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was undertaking a criminal investigation of the salt water disposal incident. In June 2014, we began discussions with the U. S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans, Louisiana with regard to resolving any potential allegations against XPLOR. Discussions are ongoing and we anticipate meeting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in August. Based upon information known to date, the range of estimated payment in settlement of alleged claims is currently estimated not to exceed $3.3 million. We are not aware of any damage from the salt water disposal system prior to TPIC’s ownership and cannot estimate a probable settlement amount at this time. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2014, 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, 2014, 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 25^th 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. On March 18, 2014, prior to the hearing on defendants’ exceptions, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The court signed the order dismissing all claims against the defendants on March 27, 2014, and the case is now closed. Accordingly, at June 30, 2014, we did not record a contingency related to this matter.

SLFPA-E Litigation – Plaintiffs South Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East (“SLFPA-E”) filed this lawsuit in Louisiana state court against over 90 oil and gas and pipeline companies. Generally the lawsuit alleges that activities by defendants—primarily but not exclusively the dredging of canals—have made it more difficult for the SLFPA-E to protect the New Orleans metropolitan area from flooding. Defendants removed the case to federal court and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On June 27, 2014, the Judge issued an Order denying remand to state court. A status conference was held on August 6, 2014. At that conference, the Court set a hearing date of November 12, 2014 for all Rule 12(b) defense motions and plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court further stated that another status conference will be held two (2) weeks after her ruling on the Motions that are filed. Until that time, there will be no discovery or, other than the motions that have been specifically allowed to be filed, any other activity in the case. The petition alleges that HKN, Inc. is "by virtue of [one or more of] mergers, acquisitions, name changes, etc., responsible for" the actions of Tejas Power Corporation, which is alleged to have obtained in the 1980s certain dredging permits and rights of way. HKN, Inc. disputes that it is responsible for any actions of Tejas Power Corporation. The public record appears to suggest that Tejas Power Corporation may have been a subsidiary of Harken Oil and Gas, Incorporated (a previous name of HKN, Inc.) for a few years in the 1980s and 1990s. However, there appears to be nothing to indicate that HKN, Inc. would have liability for the actions of Tejas Power Corporation, which continued to exist after HKN, Inc. no longer had any interest in Tejas Power Corporation. 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, 2014, 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 $151 thousand, resulting in a total assessment of $345 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, 2014, 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 $345 thousand.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details