2.4.0.81030 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1false falsefalseD2013Q2YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0000805022duration2013-01-01T00:00:002013-06-30T00:00:001true 1us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES2false 2us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterseLabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times New Roman;"> 3.  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES   Claims and Legal 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.   BORCO Jetty.  On May 25, 2012, a ship allided with a jetty at our BORCO facility while berthing, causing damage to portions of the jetty.  The extent of the damage is presently estimated to be approximately $25.0 million.  Buckeye has insurance to cover this loss, subject to a $5.0 million deductible.  On May 26, 2012, we commenced legal proceedings in The Bahamas against the vessel’s owner and the vessel to obtain security for the cost of repairs and other losses incurred as a result of the incident.  Full security for our claim has been provided by the vessel owner’s insurers, reserving all of their defenses.  We also have notified the customer on whose behalf the vessel was at the BORCO facility that we intend to hold them responsible for all damages and losses resulting from the incident pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the parties.  Any disputes between us and our customer on this matter are subject to arbitration in Houston, Texas.  The vessel owner has claimed that it is entitled to limit its liability to approximately $17.0 million, but we are contesting the right of the vessel owner to such limitation.  A hearing in the Bahamas court on the vessel owner’s right to limit its liability was held on July 23, 2013, and we are awaiting a ruling on the issue.  At this time, we have not experienced any material interruption of service at the BORCO facility as a result of the incident, and the repairs of the damaged sections are substantially complete.  We recorded a loss on disposal due to the assets destroyed in the incident and other related costs incurred; however, since we believe recovery of our losses is probable, we recorded a corresponding receivable.  As of June 30, 2013, we have a $5.0 million receivable included in “Other non-current assets” in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet, representing reimbursement of the deductible.  To the extent the proceeds from the recovery of our losses is in excess of the carrying value of the destroyed assets or other costs incurred, we will recognize a gain when such proceeds are received and are not refundable.  As of June 30, 2013, no gain had been recognized; however, we recorded a $2.4 million deferred gain in “Accrued and other current liabilities” in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet, representing excess proceeds received over the loss on disposal and other costs incurred.   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Proceedings   FERC Docket No. IS12-185 — Buckeye Pipe Line Show Cause Proceeding.  On March 30, 2012, FERC issued an order (the “Show Cause Order”) regarding the market-based methodology used by Buckeye Pipe Line Company, L.P. (“BPLC”) to set tariff rates on its pipeline system (the “Buckeye System”).  In 1991, BPLC sought and received FERC permission to determine rate changes on the Buckeye System using a unique methodology that constrains rates in markets not found to be competitive based on rate changes in markets that FERC found to be competitive, as well as certain other limits on rate increases.  FERC ordered the continuation of this methodology for the Buckeye System in 1994, subject to FERC’s authority to cause BPLC to terminate the program in the future.  The Show Cause Order, among other things, stated that FERC would review the continued efficacy of BPLC’s unique program and directed BPLC to show cause why it should not be required to discontinue the program on the Buckeye System and avail itself of the generic ratemaking methodologies used by other oil pipelines.  The Show Cause Order also disallowed proposed rate increases on the Buckeye System that would have become effective April 1, 2012.  The Show Cause Order did not impact any of the pipeline systems or terminals owned by Buckeye’s other operating subsidiaries.  On April 23, 2012, BPLC requested rehearing as to the disallowance of certain rates.  On February 22, 2013, FERC issued an order in Dkt. No. IS12-185-000 et al. discontinuing the BPLC program, and affirming on rehearing its rejection of all rate increases filed in March 2012 (“Ratemaking Methodology Order”).  The Ratemaking Methodology Order permitted Buckeye to retain its currently-filed rates in place, to make future rate changes in under market-based ratemaking authority in markets previously found to be competitive by FERC, and to make future changes in rates in other markets pursuant to the generic FERC ratemaking methods, which would include indexing.  No requests for rehearing or petitions for judicial review were filed with respect to the Ratemaking Methodology Order.  Subsequently, on March 28, 2013, BPLC filed rate increases for services in the markets previously found to be competitive, and on May 30, 2013, BPLC filed rate increases for most transportation services in the markets not previously found to be competitive; both sets of tariff filings became effective and are not subject to any FERC proceedings.   FERC Docket No. OR12-28 — Airlines Complaint against BPLC New York City Jet Fuel Rates.  On September 20, 2012, a complaint was filed with FERC by Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, United/Continental Air Lines, and US Airways challenging BPLC’s rates for transportation of jet fuel from New Jersey to three New York City airports.  The complaint was not directed at BPLC’s rates for service to other destinations, and does not involve pipeline systems and terminals owned by Buckeye’s other operating subsidiaries.  The complaint challenges these jet fuel transportation rates as generating revenues in excess of costs and thus being “unjust and unreasonable” under the Interstate Commerce Act.  On October 10, 2012, BPLC filed its answer to the complaint, contending that the airlines’ allegations are based on inappropriate adjustments to the pipeline’s costs and revenues, and that, in any event, any revenue recovery by BPLC in excess of costs would be irrelevant because BPLC’s rates are set under a FERC-approved program that ties rates to competitive levels.  BPLC also sought dismissal of the complaint to the extent it seeks to challenge the portion of BPLC’s rates that were deemed just and reasonable, or “grandfathered,” under Section 1803 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.  BPLC further contested the airlines’ ability to seek relief as to past charges where the rates are lawful under BPLC’s FERC-approved rate program.  On October 25, 2012, the complainants filed their answer to BPLC’s motion to dismiss and answer.  On November 9, 2012, BPLC filed a response addressing newly raised arguments in the complainants’ October 25th answer.  On February 22, 2013, FERC issued an order setting the airline complaint in Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance and setting the dispute for settlement procedures before a settlement judge.  If FERC were to find these challenged rates to be in excess of costs and not otherwise protected by law, it could order BPLC to reduce these rates prospectively and could order repayment to the complaining airlines of any past charges found to be in excess of just and reasonable levels for up to two years prior to the filing date of the complaint. BPLC intends to vigorously defend its rates.  On March 8, 2013, an order was issued consolidating this complaint proceeding with the proceeding regarding BPLC’s application for market-based rates in the New York City market in Dkt. No. OR13-3-00 (discussed below), for settlement purposes, and settlement discussions under the supervision of the FERC settlement judge are ongoing.  The timing or outcome of final resolution of this matter cannot reasonably be determined at this time.   FERC Docket No. OR13-3 — Buckeye Pipe Line’s Market-Based Rate Application.  On October 15, 2012, BPLC filed an application with FERC seeking authority to charge market-based rates for deliveries of refined petroleum products to the New York City-area market (the “Application”).  In the Application, BPLC seeks to charge market-based rates from its three origin points in northeastern New Jersey to its five destinations on its Long Island System, including deliveries of jet fuel to the Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports.  The jet fuel rates were also the subject of the airlines’ OR12-28 complaint discussed above.  On December 14, 2012, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, United/Continental Air Lines, and US Airways filed a joint intervention and protest challenging the Application and requesting its rejection.  On January 14, 2013, BPLC filed its answer to the protest and requested summary disposition as to those non-jet-fuel rates that were not challenged in the protest.  On January 29, 2013, the protestants responded to BPLC’s answer, and on February 13, 2013, BPLC filed a further answer to the protestants’ January 29, 2013 pleading.  On February 28, 2013, FERC issued an order setting the Application for hearing, holding the hearing in abeyance and setting the dispute for settlement procedures before a settlement judge.  As discussed above, the Application has been consolidated with the complaint proceeding in Dkt. No. OR12-28-000 for settlement purposes and settlement discussions under the supervision of the FERC settlement judge are ongoing.  If FERC were to approve the Application, BPLC would be permitted prospectively to set these rates in response to competitive forces, and the basis for the airlines’ claim for relief in their OR12-28 complaint as to BPLC’s future rates would be irrelevant prospectively.  The timing or outcome of FERC’s review of the Application cannot reasonably be determined at this time.   Environmental Contingencies   We recorded operating expenses, net of insurance recoveries, of $1.5 million and $1.4 million during the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, related to environmental remediation expenditures unrelated to claims and legal proceedings.  For the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, we recorded operating expenses, net of recoveries, of $3.0 million and $2.6 million, respectively, related to environmental remediation expenditures unrelated to claims and legal proceedings.  Costs incurred may be in excess of our estimate, which may have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.  As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we recorded environmental liabilities of $62.4 million and $61.8 million, respectively.  At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had $11.9 million and $17.7 million, respectively, of receivables related to these environmental remediation expenditures covered by insurance. </div>falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 false0COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESfalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://www.buckeye.com/role/DisclosureCommitmentsAndContingencies12