Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Credit Risk* In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, exceed federally insurable limits. *Legal Proceedings* We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued $11,140,000 and $11,040,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We have recorded provisions for litigation losses aggregating $100,000 and $10,000 for certain of these matters during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River and MTBE litigations in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. *Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River* In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for alleged natural resource damages (“NRD” or “NRDs”) resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provided, among other things, that the recipients thereof must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by the discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which was sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we were not liable. There has been no material activity and/or communications by the NJDEP with respect to the Directive since early after its issuance. In May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties, most of which are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”) who have collectively agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for a 17 mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. We are a party to the AOC and are a member of the CPG. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River, which is currently scheduled to be completed in 2015. Subsequently, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) effective June 18, 2012 to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”) directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. While the EPA’s preferred approach would involve bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap, the FFS is subject to public comments and/or objections that must be considered by the EPA before a final remedial approach is selected and thus many uncertainties remain with respect to the final proposed remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS, RI/FS, AOC and 10.9 AOC do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. *MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey* We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gas station properties from which the releases occurred. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. Preliminary settlement communications from the plaintiffs indicated that they were seeking $88,000,000 collectively from us, Marketing and Lukoil. Subsequent communications from the plaintiffs indicate that they are seeking approximately $24,000,000 from us. We have countered with a settlement offer on behalf of the Company only, which was rejected. We do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic given the legal theories and facts applicable to our activities and gas stations, and affirmative defenses available to us, all of which we believe have not been sufficiently developed in the proceedings. We continue to engage in a settlement negotiation and a dialogue to educate the plaintiff’s counsel on the unique nature of the Company and our business as compared to the other defendants in the litigation. In addition, we are pursuing claims for reimbursement of monies expended in the defense and settlement of certain MTBE cases under pollution insurance policies previously obtained by Marketing and under which we believe we are entitled to coverage; however, we have not yet confirmed whether and to what extent such coverage may actually be available. We are unable to estimate with certainty the amount of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. Our best estimate of the loss within a range of loss has been accrued for; however, it is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could result in a loss in excess of the amount accrued as of March 31, 2015 and such additional losses could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. *MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania* On June 19, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County alleging various theories of liability due to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”). The Complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including but not limited to Exxon Mobil, various BP entities, Chevron, Citgo, Gulf, Lukoil Americas, Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc., Marathon, Hess, Shell Oil, Texaco, Valero, as well as other smaller petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The Complaint seeks compensation, among other asserted causes of action, for NRDs and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” Plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Pennsylvania to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. Plaintiffs have recently filed an amended Complaint asserting additional causes of action against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in filing motions to dismiss the claims against us, which remain pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously against the Complaint. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Risk

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, exceed federally insurable limits.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued $11,140,000 and $11,040,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We have recorded provisions for litigation losses aggregating $100,000 and $10,000 for certain of these matters during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River and MTBE litigations in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for alleged natural resource damages (“NRD” or “NRDs”) resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provided, among other things, that the recipients thereof must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by the discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which was sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we were not liable. There has been no material activity and/or communications by the NJDEP with respect to the Directive since early after its issuance.

In May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties, most of which are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”) who have collectively agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for a 17 mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. We are a party to the AOC and are a member of the CPG. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River, which is currently scheduled to be completed in 2015. Subsequently, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) effective June 18, 2012 to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”) directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. While the EPA’s preferred approach would involve bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap, the FFS is subject to public comments and/or objections that must be considered by the EPA before a final remedial approach is selected and thus many uncertainties remain with respect to the final proposed remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS, RI/FS, AOC and 10.9 AOC do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey

We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gas station properties from which the releases occurred. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. Preliminary settlement communications from the plaintiffs indicated that they were seeking $88,000,000 collectively from us, Marketing and Lukoil. Subsequent communications from the plaintiffs indicate that they are seeking approximately $24,000,000 from us. We have countered with a settlement offer on behalf of the Company only, which was rejected. We do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic given the legal theories and facts applicable to our activities and gas stations, and affirmative defenses available to us, all of which we believe have not been sufficiently developed in the proceedings. We continue to engage in a settlement negotiation and a dialogue to educate the plaintiff’s counsel on the unique nature of the Company and our business as compared to the other defendants in the litigation. In addition, we are pursuing claims for reimbursement of monies expended in the defense and settlement of certain MTBE cases under pollution insurance policies previously obtained by Marketing and under which we believe we are entitled to coverage; however, we have not yet confirmed whether and to what extent such coverage may actually be available. We are unable to estimate with certainty the amount of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. Our best estimate of the loss within a range of loss has been accrued for; however, it is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could result in a loss in excess of the amount accrued as of March 31, 2015 and such additional losses could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On June 19, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County alleging various theories of liability due to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”).

The Complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including but not limited to Exxon Mobil, various BP entities, Chevron, Citgo, Gulf, Lukoil Americas, Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc., Marathon, Hess, Shell Oil, Texaco, Valero, as well as other smaller petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE.

The Complaint seeks compensation, among other asserted causes of action, for NRDs and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” Plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Pennsylvania to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. Plaintiffs have recently filed an amended Complaint asserting additional causes of action against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in filing motions to dismiss the claims against us, which remain pending with the Court.

We intend to defend vigorously against the Complaint. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.