Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	6. Commitments and Contingencies Natural Gas Purchase Commitments – At March 31, 2019, our natural gas contracts, which qualify as normal purchases under GAAP and thus are not mark-to-market, included minimal volume purchase commitments with fixed prices through April 2019. Legal Matters - Following is a summary of certain legal matters involving the Company: A. Environmental Matters Our facilities and operations are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental laws and to other laws regarding health and safety matters (collectively, the “Environmental and Health Laws”), many of which provide for certain performance obligations, substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations. Certain Environmental and Health Laws impose strict liability as well as joint and several liability for costs required to remediate and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or solid wastes have been stored or released. We may be required to remediate contaminated properties currently or formerly owned or operated by us or facilities of third parties that received waste generated by our operations regardless of whether such contamination resulted from the conduct of others or from consequences of our own actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time those actions were taken. In connection with certain acquisitions, we could acquire, or be required to provide indemnification against, environmental liabilities that could expose us to material losses. In certain instances, citizen groups also have the ability to bring legal proceedings against us if we are not in compliance with environmental laws, or to challenge our ability to receive environmental permits that we need to operate. In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety effects of our operations. There can be no assurance that we will not incur material costs or liabilities in complying with such laws or in paying fines or penalties for violation of such laws. Our insurance may not cover all environmental risks and costs or may not provide sufficient coverage if an environmental claim is made against us. The Environmental and Health Laws and related enforcement policies have in the past resulted, and could in the future result, in significant compliance expenses, cleanup costs (for our sites or third-party sites where our wastes were disposed of), penalties or other liabilities relating to the handling, manufacture, use, emission, discharge or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials at or from our facilities or the use or disposal of certain of its chemical products. Further, a number of our facilities are dependent on environmental permits to operate, the loss or modification of which could have a material adverse effect on their operations and our financial condition. Historically, significant capital expenditures have been incurred by our subsidiaries in order to comply with the Environmental and Health Laws, and significant capital expenditures are expected to be incurred in the future. We will also be obligated to manage certain discharge water outlets and monitor groundwater contaminants at our facilities should we discontinue the operations of a facility. We did not operate the natural gas wells where we previously owned a working interest and compliance with Environmental and Health Laws was controlled by others. We were responsible for our working interest proportionate share of the costs involved. As of March 31, 2019, our accrued liabilities for environmental matters totaled $183,000 relating primarily to the matters discussed below. 6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) 1. Discharge Water Matters Each of our manufacturing facilities generates process wastewater, which may include cooling tower and boiler water quality control streams, contact storm water and miscellaneous spills and leaks from process equipment. The process water discharge, storm-water runoff and miscellaneous spills and leaks are governed by various permits generally issued by the respective state environmental agencies as authorized and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These permits limit the type and amount of effluents that can be discharged and control the method of such discharge. In October 2017, PCC filed a Permit Renewal Application for its Non-Hazardous Injection Well Permit at the Pryor Facility. Although the Injection Well Permit expired in 2018, PCC continues to operate the injection well pending the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”) action on the Permit Renewal Application. PCC and ODEQ are engaged in ongoing discussions related to the renewal of the injection well to address the wastewater stream. Our El Dorado Facility is subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) in 2004. In 2010, the ADEQ issued a draft NPDES permit renewal for the El Dorado Facility, which contains more restrictive discharge limits than the previous 2004 permit. In August 2017, ADEQ issued a final NPDES permit with new dissolved mineral limits. EDC filed an appeal in September 2017 and a Permit Appeal Resolution (“PAR”) was signed in July 2018. EDC is in compliance with the revised permit limits agreed upon in the PAR. In November 2006, the El Dorado Facility entered into a Consent Administrative Order (“CAO”) that recognizes the presence of nitrate contamination in the shallow groundwater. The CAO requires EDC to perform semi-annual groundwater monitoring, continue operation of a groundwater recovery system, submit a human health and ecological risk assessment, and submit a remedial action plan. The risk assessment was submitted in August 2007. In February 2015, the ADEQ stated that El Dorado Chemical was meeting the requirements of the CAO and should continue semi-annual monitoring. Subsequent to the PAR mentioned previously, a new CAO was signed in October 2018 which required an Evaluation Report of the data and effectiveness of the groundwater remedy for nitrate contamination. That report was submitted to the ADEQ on February 11, 2019. The cost of any additional remediation that may be required would be determined based on the results of the investigation and risk assessment, of which cost (or range of costs, if any,) cannot currently be reasonably estimated. Therefore, no liability has been established at March 31, 2019, in connection with this matter. 2. Other Environmental Matters In 2002, certain of our subsidiaries sold substantially all of their operating assets relating to a Kansas chemical facility (the “Hallowell Facility”) but retained ownership of the real property where the facility is located. Our subsidiary retained the obligation to be responsible for, and perform the activities under, a previously executed consent order to investigate the surface and subsurface contamination at the real property and develop a corrective action strategy based on the investigation. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries agreed to indemnify the buyer of such assets for these environmental matters. As the successor to a prior owner of the Hallowell Facility, Chevron Environmental Management Company (“Chevron”) has agreed in writing, within certain limitations, to pay and has been paying one-half of the costs of the investigation and interim measures relating to this matter as approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the “KDHE”), subject to reallocation. Our subsidiary and Chevron have retained an environmental consultant to prepare and perform a corrective action study work plan as to the appropriate method to remediate the Hallowell Facility. The proposed strategy includes long-term surface and groundwater monitoring to track the natural decline in contamination. The KDHE is currently evaluating the corrective action strategy, and, thus, it is unknown what additional work the KDHE may require, if any, at this time. We accrued our allocable portion of costs primarily for the additional testing, monitoring and risk assessments that could be reasonably estimated, which is included in our accrued liabilities for environmental matters discussed above. The estimated amount is not discounted to its present value. As more information becomes available, our estimated accrual will be refined. 6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) B. Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation In 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at the West Fertilizer Co. (“West Fertilizer”) located in West, Texas, causing death, bodily injury and substantial property damage. West Fertilizer is not owned or controlled by us, but West Fertilizer was a customer of EDC, and purchased AN from EDC from time to time. LSB and EDC received letters from counsel purporting to represent subrogated insurance carriers, personal injury claimants and persons who suffered property damages informing LSB and EDC that their clients are conducting investigations into the cause of the explosion and fire to determine, among other things, whether AN manufactured by EDC and supplied to West Fertilizer was stored at West Fertilizer at the time of the explosion and, if so, whether such AN may have been one of the contributing factors of the explosion. Initial lawsuits filed named West Fertilizer and another supplier of AN as defendants. In 2014, EDC and LSB were named as defendants, together with other AN manufacturers and brokers that arranged the transport and delivery of AN to West Fertilizer, in the case styled City of West, Texas vs. CF Industries, Inc., et al., in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that LSB and EDC were negligent in the production and marketing of fertilizer products sold to West Fertilizer, resulting in death, personal injury and property damage. EDC retained a firm specializing in cause and origin investigations with particular experience with fertilizer facilities, to assist EDC in its own investigation. LSB and EDC placed its liability insurance carrier on notice, and the carrier is handling the defense for LSB and EDC concerning this matter. Our product liability insurance policies have aggregate limits of general liability totaling $100 million, with a self-insured retention of $250,000, which retention limit has been met relating to this matter. In August 2015, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claims against us and EDC based on a duty to inspect but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on claims for design defect and failure to warn. Subsequently, we and EDC have entered into confidential settlement agreements (with approval of our insurance carriers) with several plaintiffs that had claimed wrongful death and bodily injury and insurance companies asserting subrogation claims for damages from the explosion. A portion of these settlements have been paid by the insurer as of March 31, 2019. While these settlements resolve the claims of a number of the claimants in this matter for us, we continue to be party to litigation related to this explosion by other plaintiffs, in addition to indemnification or defense obligations we may have to other defendants. We continue to defend these lawsuits vigorously and we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss at this time if there is an adverse outcome in this matter as to EDC. As of March 31, 2019, no liability reserve has been established in connection with this matter, except for the unpaid portion of the settlement agreements discussed above. In 2015, a case styled Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of our shareholders and asserts that we violated federal securities laws by allegedly making material misstatements and omissions about delays and cost overruns at our El Dorado Chemical Company manufacturing facility and about our financial well-being and prospects. The lawsuit, which also names certain current and former officers, sought an unspecified amount of damages. In October 2018, LSB entered into a preliminary, binding term sheet to settle Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., which was subject to approval by the court. On January 17, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (The “Wilson Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which the settlement amount of approximately $18.5 million was paid in March by our insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims. The Wilson Settlement Agreement received preliminary approval from the Court on February 25, 2019 and will be further reviewed by the Court at a settlement hearing schedule for June 28, 2019. As of March 31, 2019, no liability reserve has been established in connection with this matter. In 2015, we and EDA received formal written notice from Global Industrial, Inc. (“Global”) of Global’s intention to assert mechanic liens for labor, service, or materials furnished under certain subcontract agreements for the improvement of the new ammonia plant at our El Dorado Facility. Global is a subcontractor of Leidos Constructors, LLC (“Leidos”), the general contractor for EDA for the construction for the ammonia plant. Leidos terminated the services of Global with respect to their work performed at our El Dorado Facility. LSB and EDA intend to pursue recovery of any damage or loss caused by Global’s work performed at our El Dorado Facility. In March 2016, EDC and we were served a summons in a case styled Global Industrial, Inc. d/b/a Global Turnaround vs. Leidos Constructors, LLC et al., where in Global seeks damages under breach of contract and other claims. We have requested indemnifications from Leidos under the terms of our contracts which they have denied, and we intend to vigorously defend against the allegation made by Global and seek reimbursement of legal expenses from Leidos under our contracts. 6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Except for the invoices totaling approximately $3.5 million that were not approved by Leidos for payment that are included in our accounts payable, no liability has been established in connection with the claims asserted by Global. On September 25, 2018, the Court bifurcated the case into: (1) Global’s claims against Leidos and LSB, and (2) the cross-claims between Leidos and LSB. Part (1) of the case was tried to the Court during the fall of 2018. The Court took the matter under advisement, will consider the evidence and render judgment. LSB intends to vigorously prosecute its claims against Leidos in Part (2) of the matter. Trial is scheduled for Part (2) of the matter in February of 2020. We are also involved in various other claims and legal actions (including matters involving gain contingencies). It is possible that the actual future development of claims could be different from our estimates but, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe that changes in our estimates will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

6. Commitments and Contingencies

Natural Gas Purchase Commitments – At March 31, 2019, our natural gas contracts, which qualify as normal purchases under GAAP and thus are not mark-to-market, included minimal volume purchase commitments with fixed prices through April 2019.

Legal Matters - Following is a summary of certain legal matters involving the Company:

A. Environmental Matters

Our facilities and operations are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental laws and to other laws regarding health and safety matters (collectively, the “Environmental and Health Laws”), many of which provide for certain performance obligations, substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations. Certain Environmental and Health Laws impose strict liability as well as joint and several liability for costs required to remediate and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or solid wastes have been stored or released. We may be required to remediate contaminated properties currently or formerly owned or operated by us or facilities of third parties that received waste generated by our operations regardless of whether such contamination resulted from the conduct of others or from consequences of our own actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time those actions were taken. In connection with certain acquisitions, we could acquire, or be required to provide indemnification against, environmental liabilities that could expose us to material losses. In certain instances, citizen groups also have the ability to bring legal proceedings against us if we are not in compliance with environmental laws, or to challenge our ability to receive environmental permits that we need to operate. In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety effects of our operations.

There can be no assurance that we will not incur material costs or liabilities in complying with such laws or in paying fines or penalties for violation of such laws. Our insurance may not cover all environmental risks and costs or may not provide sufficient coverage if an environmental claim is made against us. The Environmental and Health Laws and related enforcement policies have in the past resulted, and could in the future result, in significant compliance expenses, cleanup costs (for our sites or third-party sites where our wastes were disposed of), penalties or other liabilities relating to the handling, manufacture, use, emission, discharge or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials at or from our facilities or the use or disposal of certain of its chemical products. Further, a number of our facilities are dependent on environmental permits to operate, the loss or modification of which could have a material adverse effect on their operations and our financial condition.

Historically, significant capital expenditures have been incurred by our subsidiaries in order to comply with the Environmental and Health Laws, and significant capital expenditures are expected to be incurred in the future. We will also be obligated to manage certain discharge water outlets and monitor groundwater contaminants at our facilities should we discontinue the operations of a facility. We did not operate the natural gas wells where we previously owned a working interest and compliance with Environmental and Health Laws was controlled by others. We were responsible for our working interest proportionate share of the costs involved.

As of March 31, 2019, our accrued liabilities for environmental matters totaled $183,000 relating primarily to the matters discussed below.

6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

1. Discharge Water Matters

Each of our manufacturing facilities generates process wastewater, which may include cooling tower and boiler water quality control streams, contact storm water and miscellaneous spills and leaks from process equipment. The process water discharge, storm-water runoff and miscellaneous spills and leaks are governed by various permits generally issued by the respective state environmental agencies as authorized and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These permits limit the type and amount of effluents that can be discharged and control the method of such discharge.

In October 2017, PCC filed a Permit Renewal Application for its Non-Hazardous Injection Well Permit at the Pryor Facility. Although the Injection Well Permit expired in 2018, PCC continues to operate the injection well pending the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”) action on the Permit Renewal Application. PCC and ODEQ are engaged in ongoing discussions related to the renewal of the injection well to address the wastewater stream.

Our El Dorado Facility is subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) in 2004. In 2010, the ADEQ issued a draft NPDES permit renewal for the El Dorado Facility, which contains more restrictive discharge limits than the previous 2004 permit. In August 2017, ADEQ issued a final NPDES permit with new dissolved mineral limits. EDC filed an appeal in September 2017 and a Permit Appeal Resolution (“PAR”) was signed in July 2018. EDC is in compliance with the revised permit limits agreed upon in the PAR.

In November 2006, the El Dorado Facility entered into a Consent Administrative Order (“CAO”) that recognizes the presence of nitrate contamination in the shallow groundwater. The CAO requires EDC to perform semi-annual groundwater monitoring, continue operation of a groundwater recovery system, submit a human health and ecological risk assessment, and submit a remedial action plan. The risk assessment was submitted in August 2007. In February 2015, the ADEQ stated that El Dorado Chemical was meeting the requirements of the CAO and should continue semi-annual monitoring. Subsequent to the PAR mentioned previously, a new CAO was signed in October 2018 which required an Evaluation Report of the data and effectiveness of the groundwater remedy for nitrate contamination. That report was submitted to the ADEQ on February 11, 2019.

The cost of any additional remediation that may be required would be determined based on the results of the investigation and risk assessment, of which cost (or range of costs, if any,) cannot currently be reasonably estimated. Therefore, no liability has been established at March 31, 2019, in connection with this matter.

2. Other Environmental Matters

In 2002, certain of our subsidiaries sold substantially all of their operating assets relating to a Kansas chemical facility (the “Hallowell Facility”) but retained ownership of the real property where the facility is located. Our subsidiary retained the obligation to be responsible for, and perform the activities under, a previously executed consent order to investigate the surface and subsurface contamination at the real property and develop a corrective action strategy based on the investigation. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries agreed to indemnify the buyer of such assets for these environmental matters.

As the successor to a prior owner of the Hallowell Facility, Chevron Environmental Management Company (“Chevron”) has agreed in writing, within certain limitations, to pay and has been paying one-half of the costs of the investigation and interim measures relating to this matter as approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the “KDHE”), subject to reallocation.

Our subsidiary and Chevron have retained an environmental consultant to prepare and perform a corrective action study work plan as to the appropriate method to remediate the Hallowell Facility. The proposed strategy includes long-term surface and groundwater monitoring to track the natural decline in contamination. The KDHE is currently evaluating the corrective action strategy, and, thus, it is unknown what additional work the KDHE may require, if any, at this time.

We accrued our allocable portion of costs primarily for the additional testing, monitoring and risk assessments that could be reasonably estimated, which is included in our accrued liabilities for environmental matters discussed above. The estimated amount is not discounted to its present value. As more information becomes available, our estimated accrual will be refined.

6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

B. Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation

In 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at the West Fertilizer Co. (“West Fertilizer”) located in West, Texas, causing death, bodily injury and substantial property damage. West Fertilizer is not owned or controlled by us, but West Fertilizer was a customer of EDC, and purchased AN from EDC from time to time. LSB and EDC received letters from counsel purporting to represent subrogated insurance carriers, personal injury claimants and persons who suffered property damages informing LSB and EDC that their clients are conducting investigations into the cause of the explosion and fire to determine, among other things, whether AN manufactured by EDC and supplied to West Fertilizer was stored at West Fertilizer at the time of the explosion and, if so, whether such AN may have been one of the contributing factors of the explosion. Initial lawsuits filed named West Fertilizer and another supplier of AN as defendants.

In 2014, EDC and LSB were named as defendants, together with other AN manufacturers and brokers that arranged the transport and delivery of AN to West Fertilizer, in the case styled City of West, Texas vs. CF Industries, Inc., et al., in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that LSB and EDC were negligent in the production and marketing of fertilizer products sold to West Fertilizer, resulting in death, personal injury and property damage. EDC retained a firm specializing in cause and origin investigations with particular experience with fertilizer facilities, to assist EDC in its own investigation. LSB and EDC placed its liability insurance carrier on notice, and the carrier is handling the defense for LSB and EDC concerning this matter.

Our product liability insurance policies have aggregate limits of general liability totaling $100 million, with a self-insured retention of $250,000, which retention limit has been met relating to this matter. In August 2015, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claims against us and EDC based on a duty to inspect but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on claims for design defect and failure to warn.

Subsequently, we and EDC have entered into confidential settlement agreements (with approval of our insurance carriers) with several plaintiffs that had claimed wrongful death and bodily injury and insurance companies asserting subrogation claims for damages from the explosion. A portion of these settlements have been paid by the insurer as of March 31, 2019. While these settlements resolve the claims of a number of the claimants in this matter for us, we continue to be party to litigation related to this explosion by other plaintiffs, in addition to indemnification or defense obligations we may have to other defendants. We continue to defend these lawsuits vigorously and we are unable to estimate a possible range of loss at this time if there is an adverse outcome in this matter as to EDC. As of March 31, 2019, no liability reserve has been established in connection with this matter, except for the unpaid portion of the settlement agreements discussed above.

In 2015, a case styled Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of our shareholders and asserts that we violated federal securities laws by allegedly making material misstatements and omissions about delays and cost overruns at our El Dorado Chemical Company manufacturing facility and about our financial well-being and prospects. The lawsuit, which also names certain current and former officers, sought an unspecified amount of damages.

In October 2018, LSB entered into a preliminary, binding term sheet to settle Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., which was subject to approval by the court. On January 17, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (The “Wilson Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which the settlement amount of approximately $18.5 million was paid in March by our insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims. The Wilson Settlement Agreement received preliminary approval from the Court on February 25, 2019 and will be further reviewed by the Court at a settlement hearing schedule for June 28, 2019. As of March 31, 2019, no liability reserve has been established in connection with this matter.

In 2015, we and EDA received formal written notice from Global Industrial, Inc. (“Global”) of Global’s intention to assert mechanic liens for labor, service, or materials furnished under certain subcontract agreements for the improvement of the new ammonia plant at our El Dorado Facility. Global is a subcontractor of Leidos Constructors, LLC (“Leidos”), the general contractor for EDA for the construction for the ammonia plant. Leidos terminated the services of Global with respect to their work performed at our El Dorado Facility.

LSB and EDA intend to pursue recovery of any damage or loss caused by Global’s work performed at our El Dorado Facility. In March 2016, EDC and we were served a summons in a case styled Global Industrial, Inc. d/b/a Global Turnaround vs. Leidos Constructors, LLC et al., where in Global seeks damages under breach of contract and other claims. We have requested indemnifications from Leidos under the terms of our contracts which they have denied, and we intend to vigorously defend against the allegation made by Global and seek reimbursement of legal expenses from Leidos under our contracts.

6. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

Except for the invoices totaling approximately $3.5 million that were not approved by Leidos for payment that are included in our accounts payable, no liability has been established in connection with the claims asserted by Global. On September 25, 2018, the Court bifurcated the case into: (1) Global’s claims against Leidos and LSB, and (2) the cross-claims between Leidos and LSB. Part (1) of the case was tried to the Court during the fall of 2018. The Court took the matter under advisement, will consider the evidence and render judgment. LSB intends to vigorously prosecute its claims against Leidos in Part (2) of the matter. Trial is scheduled for Part (2) of the matter in February of 2020.

We are also involved in various other claims and legal actions (including matters involving gain contingencies). It is possible that the actual future development of claims could be different from our estimates but, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe that changes in our estimates will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.