2.2.0.7 false Commitments and Contingencies 0203 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] 0 bpl_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract bpl false na duration Commitments And Contingencies. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Commitments And Contingencies. false 3 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">  <i>Claims and Proceedings</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various claims and legal proceedings, some of which are covered by insurance. We are generally unable to predict the timing or outcome of these claims and proceedings. Based upon our evaluation of existing claims and proceedings and the probability of losses relating to such contingencies, we have accrued certain amounts relating to such claims and proceedings, none of which are considered material. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2010, the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) proposed penalties totaling approximately $0.5 million in connection with a tank overfill incident that occurred at our facility in East Chicago, Indiana, in May 2005 and other related personnel qualification issues raised as a result of PHMSA’s 2008 Integrity Inspection. We are contesting the proposed penalty. The timing or outcome of this appeal cannot reasonably be determined at this time. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On July 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management LLC (“MainLine Management”), BGH GP Holdings, LLC (“BGH GP”), and each of MainLine Management’s directors in the District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption <i>Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.</i> In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH’s public unitholders by, among other things, acting to facilitate the sale of BGH to Buckeye in order to facilitate the gradual sale by BGH GP of its interest in BGH and failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement. Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a class consisting of all BGH unitholders, a determination that the action is a proper derivative action, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the Petition. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, Grand Ohio, LLC, Buckeye, Buckeye GP, and each of MainLine Management’s directors in the District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption <i>Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.</i> In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH’s public unitholders by, among other things, failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement. The Petition also alleges that Buckeye, Buckeye GP and Grand Ohio, LLC aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a plaintiff class consisting of all of BGH unitholders, an order enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Neither we nor the other defendants have yet answered or otherwise responded to the Petition. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, BGH GP, ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC (“ArcLight”), Kelso & Company (“Kelso”), Buckeye, Buckeye GP, and each of MainLine Management’s directors, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption <i>Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.</i> In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH’s public unitholders by, among other things, accepting insufficient consideration, failing to condition the Merger on a majority vote of public unitholders of BGH, and failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement. The Petition also alleges that Buckeye, Buckeye GP, BGH GP, ArcLight, and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a class consisting of all of BGH’s unitholders, an order enjoining the Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Neither we nor the other defendants have yet answered or otherwise responded to the Petition. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">  <i>Environmental Contingencies</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In accordance with our accounting policy, we recorded operating expenses, net of insurance recoveries, of $2.5 million and $1.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and $5.4 million and $6.6 million during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, related to environmental expenditures unrelated to claims and proceedings. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">  <i>Ammonia Contract Contingencies</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On November 30, 2005, Buckeye Gulf Coast Pipe Lines, L.P. (“BGC”) purchased an ammonia pipeline and other assets from El Paso Merchant Energy-Petroleum Company (“EPME”), a subsidiary of El Paso Corporation (“El Paso”). As part of the transaction, BGC assumed the obligations of EPME under several contracts involving monthly purchases and sales of ammonia. EPME and BGC agreed, however, that EPME would retain the economic risks and benefits associated with those contracts until their expiration at the end of 2012. To effectuate this agreement, BGC passes through to EPME both the cost of purchasing ammonia under a supply contract and the proceeds from selling ammonia under three sales contracts. For the vast majority of monthly periods since the closing of the pipeline acquisition, the pricing terms of the ammonia contracts have resulted in ammonia costs exceeding ammonia sales proceeds. The amount of the shortfall generally increases as the market price of ammonia increases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     EPME has informed BGC that, notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, it will not continue to pay BGC for shortfalls created by the pass-through of ammonia costs in excess of ammonia revenues. EPME encouraged BGC to seek payment by invoking a $40.0 million guaranty made by El Paso, which guaranteed EPME’s obligations to BGC. If EPME fails to reimburse BGC for these shortfalls for a significant period during the remainder of the term of the ammonia agreements, then such unreimbursed shortfalls could exceed the $40.0 million cap on El Paso’s guaranty. To the extent the unreimbursed shortfalls significantly exceed the $40.0 million cap, the resulting costs incurred by BGC could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. To date, BGC has continued to receive payment for ammonia costs under the contracts at issue. BGC has not called on El Paso’s guaranty and believes only BGC may invoke the guaranty. EPME, however, contends that El Paso’s guaranty is the source of payment for the shortfalls, but has not clarified the extent to which it believes the guaranty has been exhausted. We have been working with EPME to terminate the ammonia sales contracts and ammonia supply contracts and, at no out of pocket cost to us, have terminated one of the ammonia sales contracts. Given, however, the uncertainty of future ammonia prices and EPME’s future actions, we continue to believe we have risk of loss and, at this time, are unable to estimate the amount of any such losses we might incur in the future. We are assessing our options in the event that we and EPME are unable to terminate the remaining contracts or otherwise mitigate the remaining risk, including potential recourse against EPME and El Paso, with respect to this matter. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> <b> </b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">  <i>Customer Bankruptcy</i> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     One of our customers filed for bankruptcy in October 2009; approximately $4.2 million remained payable to us from the customer pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy contract. In June 2010, we entered into a settlement with the bankrupt customer and its largest creditor pursuant to which we expect to be paid at least $2.0 million upon the sale of certain of the customer’s assets within the bankruptcy proceedings, and we were released from both asserted and unasserted claims. At this time, we expect the sale of the assets to be completed, and the settlement payment to be made to us, in the third quarter of 2010. As a result of the settlement, our Development & Logistics segment recognized approximately $2.1 million in expense related to the write-off of a portion of the outstanding receivable balance during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. </div> <div align="left"> </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true