Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 5 — Commitments and Contingencies

     We have various contractual commitments pertaining to exploration, development and production activities. Currently, we have a work commitment of $22.0 million which is a minimum amount to be spent on the Al Ghubar / Qarn Alam license (“Block 64 EPSA”) in Oman for the drilling of two wells over a three-year period which expires in May 2013 (see Note 12 — Oman). Through September 30, 2011, we have incurred $5.2 million of this work commitment. We do not have any remaining work commitments for the current exploration phase of the Dussafu PSC, but as of May 28, 2012, the Dussafu PSC enters the third exploration phase. If the partners elect to enter the third exploration phase, there will be a $7.0 million ($4.7 million net to our 66.667 percent interest) work commitment over a two year period. The remaining work commitment for the current exploration phase on the Budong PSC is for geological and geophysical work to be completed in the year 2012 at a minimum of $0.5 million ($0.3 million net to our 64.51 percent cost sharing interest [see Note 10 — Indonesia]).

     In October 2007, we entered into a JEDA with a private third party with respect to the Antelope Project. In connection with the sale of each party’s interests in the Antelope Project (see Note 3 — Dispositions), on January 11, 2011, we entered into a letter agreement with the private third party wherein the private third party agreed to reimburse us for certain expenses related to the sale of the two parties’ interests in the Antelope Project. The private third party disputes our calculation of the amount owed to us pursuant to the January 11, 2011 letter agreement. On March 11, 2011, we entered into a letter agreement with the private third party regarding certain obligations between the parties related to the JEDA. The private third party disputes our calculation of the amount due pursuant to one of the items in the March 11, 2011 letter agreement. At September 30, 2011, we have a note receivable outstanding from the private third party of $3.3 million (see Note 2 — Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Accounts and Note Receivable) and an account payable outstanding to the private third party of $3.6 million related to the purchase in July 2010 of an incremental 10 percent interest in the Antelope Project. At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of this dispute with the private third party.

     On May 31, 2011, the United Kingdom branch of our subsidiary, Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (UK), initiated a wire transfer of approximately $1.1 million ($0.7 million net to our 66.667 percent interest) intending to pay Libya Oil Gabon S.A. (“LOGSA”) for fuel that LOGSA supplied to our subsidiary in the Netherlands, Harvest Dussafu, B.V., for the company’s drilling operations in Gabon. On June 1, 2011, our bank notified us that it had been required to block the payment in accordance with the U.S. sanctions against Libya as set forth in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, and administered by the United States Treasury Department’s OFAC, because the payee, LOGSA, may be a blocked party under the sanctions. The bank further advised us that it could not release the funds to the payee or return the funds to us unless we obtain authorization from OFAC.

     On June 30, 2011, we filed a voluntary self-disclosure with OFAC to report that we had possibly violated the U.S. sanctions by attempting to remit funds to LOGSA. On September 20, 2011, we received a response from OFAC which stated that OFAC had decided to address the matter by issuing us a cautionary letter instead of pursuing a civil penalty. The cautionary letter represents OFAC’s final response to the apparent violation, but does not constitute a final agency determination as to whether a violation occurred.

     Concurrently with the filing of the voluntary self-disclosure, we applied for a license with OFAC that would authorize us to pay LOGSA for the fuel provided. In addition to the blocked funds, we owe this supplier approximately $0.7 million ($0.5 million net to our 66.667 percent interest) in additional payments that we are unable to remit unless we are authorized to do so. We are waiting on a response and are unable, at this time, to predict when a license may be granted, if at all. On October 26, 2011, we filed an application with OFAC for return of the blocked funds to us. Unless that application is approved, the funds will remain in the blocked account, and we can give no assurance when, or if, OFAC will permit the funds to be released.

     Robert C. Bonnet and Bobby Bonnet Land Services vs. Harvest (US) Holdings, Inc., Branta Exploration & Production, LLC, Ute Energy LLC, Cameron Cuch, Paula Black, Johnna Blackhair, and Elton Blackhair in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This suit was served in April 2010 on Harvest and Elton Blackhair, a Harvest employee, alleging that the defendants, among other things, intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ employment agreement with the Ute Indian Tribe — Energy & Minerals Department and intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ prospective economic relationships. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees. We dispute Plaintiffs’ claims and plan to vigorously defend against them. We are unable to estimate the amount or range of any possible loss.

     Uracoa Municipality Tax Assessments. Our Venezuelan subsidiary, Harvest Vinccler, has received nine assessments from a tax inspector for the Uracoa municipality in which part of the Uracoa, Tucupita and Bombal fields are located as follows:

• Three claims were filed in July 2004 and allege a failure to withhold for technical service payments and a failure to pay taxes on the capital fee reimbursement and related interest paid by Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (“PDVSA”) under the Operating Service Agreement (“OSA”). Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss one of the claims and has protested with the municipality the remaining claims.

• Two claims were filed in July 2006 alleging a failure to pay taxes at a new rate set by the municipality. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, on these claims.

• Two claims were filed in August 2006 alleging a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the second quarter of 2006 and a withholding error with respect to certain vendor payments. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, on one claim and filed a protest with the municipality on the other claim.

• Two claims were filed in March 2007 alleging a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the municipality on these claims.

Harvest Vinccler disputes the Uracoa tax assessments and believes it has a substantial basis for its positions. Harvest Vinccler is unable to estimate the amount or range of any possible loss. As a result of the SENIAT’s, the Venezuelan income tax authority, interpretation of the tax code as it applies to operating service agreements, Harvest Vinccler has filed claims in the Tax Court in Caracas against the Uracoa Municipality for the refund of all municipal taxes paid since 1997.

     Libertador Municipality Tax Assessments. Harvest Vinccler has received five assessments from a tax inspector for the Libertador municipality in which part of the Uracoa, Tucupita and Bombal fields are located as follows:

• One claim was filed in April 2005 alleging a failure to pay taxes at a new rate set by the municipality. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the Mayor’s Office and a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss the claim. On April 10, 2008, the Tax Court suspended the case pending a response from the Mayor’s Office to the protest. If the municipality’s response is to confirm the assessment, Harvest Vinccler will defer to the competent Tax Court to enjoin and dismiss the claim.

• Two claims were filed in June 2007. One claim relates to the period 2003 through 2006 and seeks to impose a tax on interest paid by PDVSA under the OSA. The second claim alleges a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006. Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss both claims.

• Two claims were filed in July 2007 seeking to impose penalties on tax assessments filed and settled in 2004. Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss both claims.

Harvest Vinccler disputes the Libertador allegations set forth in the assessments and believes it has a substantial basis for its position. Harvest Vinccler is unable to estimate the amount or range of any possible loss. As a result of the SENIAT’s interpretation of the tax code as it applies to operating service agreements, Harvest Vinccler has filed claims in the Tax Court in Caracas against the Libertador Municipality for the refund of all municipal taxes paid since 2002.

     We are a defendant in or otherwise involved in other litigation incidental to our business. In the opinion of management, there is no such litigation that will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.