XML 27 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

9. Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure Abstract

Litigation and Environmental Matters

With respect to the specific litigation and environmental-related matters or claims that were disclosed in Note 12 to the financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, except as noted below, there were no material changes in the status of such litigation and environmental-related matters or claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2011. We continue to believe that the final outcome of such litigation and environmental-related matters or claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Since April 2009, Atmos Energy and two subsidiaries of AEH, AEM and Atmos Gathering Company, LLC (AGC) (collectively, the Atmos Entities), have been involved in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Edmonson County, Kentucky related to our Park City Gathering Project. The dispute which gave rise to the litigation involves the amount of royalties due from a third party producer to landowners (who own the mineral rights) for natural gas produced from the landowners' properties. The third party producer was operating pursuant to leases between the landowners and certain investors/working interest owners. The third party producer filed a petition in bankruptcy, which was subsequently dismissed due to the lack of meaningful assets to reorganize or liquidate.

Although certain Atmos Energy companies entered into contracts with the third party producer to gather, treat and ultimately sell natural gas produced from the landowners' properties, no Atmos Energy company had a contractual relationship with the landowners or the investors/working interest owners. After the lawsuit was filed, the landowners were successful in terminating for non-payment of royalties the leases related to the production of natural gas from their properties. Subsequent to termination, the investors/working interest owners under such leases filed additional claims against us for the termination of the leases.

During the trial, the landowners and the investors/working interest owners requested an award of compensatory damages plus punitive damages against us. On December 17, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the landowners and investor/working interest owners and awarded compensatory damages of $3.8 million and punitive damages of $27.5 million payable by Atmos Energy and the two AEH subsidiaries.

A hearing was held on February 28, 2011 to hear a number of motions, including a motion to dismiss the jury verdict and a motion for a new trial. The motions to dismiss the jury verdict and for a new trial were denied. However, the total punitive damages award was reduced from $27.5 million to $24.7 million. On March 30, 2011, we filed a notice of appeal of this ruling. We strongly believe that the trial court erred in not granting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit prior to trial and that the verdict is unsupported by law. After consultation with counsel, we believe that it is probable that any judgment based on this verdict will be overturned on appeal.

In addition, in a related development, on July 12, 2011, the Atmos Entities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky against the third party producer and its affiliates to recover all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the Atmos Entities, which are associated with the defense and appeal of the case discussed above as well as for all damages awarded to the plaintiffs in such case against the Atmos Entities. The total amount of damages being claimed in the lawsuit is “open-ended” since the appellate process and related costs are ongoing. This lawsuit is based upon the indemnification provisions agreed to by the third party producer in favor of Atmos Gathering that are contained in an agreement entered into between Atmos Gathering and the third party producer in May 2009.

We have accrued what we believe is an adequate amount for the anticipated resolution of this matter; however, the amount accrued does not reflect the amount of the verdict. The Company does not have insurance coverage that could mitigate any losses that may arise from the resolution of this matter; however, we believe that the final outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, we are involved in other litigation and environmental-related matters or claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. While the ultimate results of such litigation and response actions to such environmental-related matters or claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the final outcome of such litigation and response actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Purchase Commitments

AEH has commitments to purchase physical quantities of natural gas under contracts indexed to the forward NYMEX strip or fixed price contracts. At June 30, 2011, AEH was committed to purchase 104.5 Bcf within one year, 52.4 Bcf within one to three years and 2.4 Bcf after three years under indexed contracts. AEH is committed to purchase 2.6 Bcf within one year and 0.2 Bcf within one to three years under fixed price contracts with prices ranging from $4.13 to $6.36 per Mcf. Purchases under these contracts totaled $356.8 million and $315.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 and $1,130.0 million and $1,208.4 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.

Our natural gas distribution divisions, except for our Mid-Tex Division, maintain supply contracts with several vendors that generally cover a period of up to one year. Commitments for estimated base gas volumes are established under these contracts on a monthly basis at contractually negotiated prices. Commitments for incremental daily purchases are made as necessary during the month in accordance with the terms of the individual contract.

Our Mid-Tex Division maintains long-term supply contracts to ensure a reliable source of gas for our customers in its service area which obligate it to purchase specified volumes at market and fixed prices. The estimated commitments under these contracts as of June 30, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):

2011	$	52,703
2012		307,694
2013		112,319
2014		86,994
2015		-
Thereafter		-
	$	559,710

Our nonregulated segment maintains long-term contracts related to storage and transportation. The estimated contractual demand fees for contracted storage and transportation under these contracts are detailed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. There were no material changes to the estimated storage and transportation fees for the nine months ended June 30, 2011.

Regulatory Matters

As previously described in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, in December 2007, the Company received data requests from the Division of Investigations of the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) in connection with its investigation into possible violations of the Commission's posting and competitive bidding regulations for pre-arranged released firm capacity on natural gas pipelines. There have been no material developments in this matter during the nine months ended June 30, 2011. We have accrued what we believe is an adequate amount for the anticipated resolution of this proceeding. While the ultimate resolution of this investigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We have been replacing certain steel service lines in our Mid-Tex Division since our acquisition of the natural gas distribution system in 2004. Since early 2010, we have been discussing the financial and operational details of an accelerated steel service line replacement program with representatives of 440 municipalities served by our Mid-Tex Division. As previously discussed in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, all of the cities in our Mid-Tex Division have agreed to a program of installing 100,000 replacements during the next two years, with approved recovery of the associated return, depreciation and taxes. Under the terms of the agreement, the accelerated replacement program commenced in the first quarter of fiscal 2011, replacing 25,311 lines for a cost of $34.0 million as of June 30, 2011. The program is progressing on schedule for completion in September 2012.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, representing an extensive overhaul of the framework for regulation of U.S. financial markets. The Dodd-Frank Act calls for various regulatory agencies, including the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, to establish regulations for implementation of many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which we expect will provide additional clarity regarding the extent of the impact of this legislation on us. The costs of participating in financial markets for hedging certain risks inherent in our business may be increased as a result of the new legislation. We may also incur additional costs associated with compliance with new regulations and anticipate additional reporting and disclosure obligations.

As of June 30, 2011, administrative reviews of our rate review mechanisms in our Mid-Tex and West Texas service areas were in progress and a gas reliability infrastructure program (GRIP) filing was in progress in our Atmos Pipeline – Texas service area. In addition, there were other ratemaking activities in progress in our Kentucky/Mid-States, West Texas and Louisiana service areas. These regulatory proceedings are discussed in further detail below in Management's Discussion and Analysis – Recent Ratemaking Developments and Regulated Transmission and Storage Segment.

Other Matters

AGC owns and operates the Park City and Shrewsbury gathering systems in Kentucky. The Park City gathering system consists of a 23-mile low pressure pipeline and a nitrogen removal unit that was constructed in 2008. The Shrewsbury production, gathering and processing assets were acquired in 2008 at which time we sold the production assets to a third party. As a result of the sale of the production assets, we obtained a 10-year production payment note under which we are to be paid from future production generated from the assets.

As noted above, AGC is involved in an ongoing lawsuit with the Park City gathering system. Due to the lawsuit and a low natural gas price environment, the assets have generated operating losses. As a result of these developments, we performed an impairment assessment of these assets during the third fiscal quarter and determined the assets to be impaired. We reduced the carrying value of the assets to their estimated fair value based on the results of a weighted average discounted cash flow analysis and recorded a pretax noncash impairment loss of $11.0 million.

As we previously discussed in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, in February 2008, Atmos Pipeline and Storage, LLC, a subsidiary of AEH, announced plans to construct and operate a salt-cavern storage project in Franklin Parish, Louisiana. In March 2010, we entered into an option and acquisition agreement with a third party, which provided the third party with the exclusive option to develop the proposed Fort Necessity salt-dome natural gas storage project. In July 2010, we agreed with the third party to extend the option period to March 2011. In January 2011, the third party developer notified us that it did not plan to commence the activities required to allow it to exercise the option by March 2011; accordingly, the option was terminated. We evaluated our strategic alternatives and concluded the project's returns did not meet our investment objectives. Accordingly, in March 2011, we recorded a $19.3 million pretax noncash impairment loss to write off substantially all of our investment in the project.