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 EPU Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 units 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 3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Claims and Proceedings 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. 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. On August 24, 2010, the District Court of Harris County, Texas, entered an order consolidating three previously filed putative class actions (Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., and JR Garrett Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., et al., each of which were previously described in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010) under the caption of Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al. and appointing interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-liaison counsel. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended class action and derivative complaint on September 1, 2010 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint purports to be a putative class and derivative action alleging that MainLine Management LLC (“MainLine Management”) and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders in connection with the Merger by, among other things, accepting insufficient consideration and failing to disclose all material facts in order that BGH's unitholders may cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement, and that we, Buckeye GP, MainLine Management, Merger Sub, BGH GP Holdings, LLC (“BGH GP”), ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC (“ArcLight”) and Kelso & Company (“Kelso”) aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) in connection with a proposed settlement of the class action and the Complaint. The MOU provides for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release of the defendants from all present and future claims asserted in the litigation in exchange for, among other things, the agreement of the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the termination fees payable by BGH upon termination of the Merger Agreement and to provide BGH's unitholders with supplemental disclosure to BGH's and our joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated September 24, 2010. The supplemental disclosure is set forth in a joint proxy statement/prospectus supplement, dated October 29, 2010, that was filed with the SEC on November 1, 2010.  In addition, the MOU provides that, in settlement of the plaintiffs' claims (including any claim against the defendants by the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees or expenses related to the litigation), the defendants (or their insurers) will pay a cash payment of $900,000, subject to final court approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to further definitive documentation and to a number of conditions, including, without limitation, completion of certain confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, the drafting and execution of a formal Stipulation of Settlement, the consummation of the Merger and court approval of the proposed settlement. There is no assurance that these conditions will be satisfied.  We and the other defendants vigorously deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Complaint, and specifically deny that any modifications to the Merger Agreement or any supplemental disclosure was required or advisable under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continuing the litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the claims alleged, we and the other defendants agreed to the proposed settlement described above. Environmental Contingencies In accordance with our accounting policy, we recorded operating expenses, net of insurance recoveries, of $2.2 million and $2.2 million during the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and $7.6 million and $8.8 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, related to environmental expenditures unrelated to claims and proceedings.       Ammonia Contract Contingencies 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. 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.  Customer Bankruptcy One of our customers filed for bankruptcy in October 2009 and approximately $4.1 million remained payable to us from the customer pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy contract with that customer. In June 2010, we entered into a court approved settlement with the bankrupt customer and its largest creditor pursuant to which we were to be paid at least $2.0 million in cash, and we were released from both asserted and unasserted claims. In August 2010, we received a settlement payment of $2.0 million. As a result of this 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 nine months ended September 30, 2010. 3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Claims and Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various claims and legal proceedings, 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