Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation As part of our normal business activities, we may be named as defendants in legal proceedings, including those arising from regulatory and environmental matters. Although we are insured against various risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to fully indemnify us against losses arising from future legal proceedings. We will vigorously defend the partnership in litigation matters. Management has regular quarterly litigation reviews, including updates from legal counsel, to assess the possible need for accounting recognition and disclosure of these contingencies. We accrue an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of probable loss amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum amount in the range is accrued. We do not record a contingent liability when the likelihood of loss is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the likelihood of loss is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the impact would be material to our consolidated financial statements, we disclose the nature of the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Based on a consideration of all relevant known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome of any currently pending litigation directed against us will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements either individually at the claim level or in the aggregate. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our accruals for litigation contingencies were $2.4 million and were recorded in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as a component of “Other current liabilities.” Our evaluation of litigation contingencies is based on the facts and circumstances of each case and predicting the outcome of these matters involves uncertainties. In the event the assumptions we use to evaluate these matters change in future periods or new information becomes available, we may be required to record additional accruals. In an effort to mitigate expenses associated with litigation, we may settle legal proceedings out of court. ETP Matter. In connection with a proposed pipeline project, we and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) signed a non-binding letter of intent in April 2011 that disclaimed any partnership or joint venture related to such project absent executed definitive documents and board approvals of the respective companies. Definitive agreements were never executed and board approval was never obtained for the potential pipeline project. In August 2011, the proposed pipeline project was cancelled due to a lack of customer support. In September 2011, ETP filed suit against us and a third party in connection with the cancelled project alleging, among other things, that we and ETP had formed a “partnership.” The case was tried in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 298th Judicial District. While we firmly believe, and argued during our defense, that no agreement was ever executed forming a legal joint venture or partnership between the parties, the jury found that the actions of the two companies, nevertheless, constituted a legal partnership. As a result, the jury found that ETP was wrongfully excluded from a subsequent pipeline project involving a third party, and awarded ETP $319.4 million in actual damages on March 4, 2014. On July 29, 2014, the court entered judgment against us in an aggregate amount of $535.8 million, which includes (i) $319.4 million as the amount of actual damages awarded by the jury, (ii) an additional $150.0 million in disgorgement for the alleged benefit we received due to a breach of fiduciary duties by us against ETP and (iii) prejudgment interest in the amount of $66.4 million. The court also awarded post-judgment interest on such aggregate amount, to accrue at a rate of 5% per annum, compounded annually. We do not believe that the verdict or the judgment entered against us is supported by the evidence or the law. On March 30, 2015, we filed our Brief of the Appellant in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Dallas, Texas and intend to vigorously oppose the judgment through the appeals process. As of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded a provision for this matter as management believes payment of damages in this case is not probable. FTC Matter. On February 23, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand and a related Subpoena Duces Tecum from the FTC requesting specified information relating to the Oiltanking acquisition and Enterprise’s operations. On April 13, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand issued by the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting copies of the same information and any correspondence with the FTC. We are in the process of complying with the requests and are cooperating with the investigations. Based on the limited information that we have at this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigations. Contractual Obligations Scheduled Maturities of Debt. With the exception of (i) routine fluctuations in the balances of our revolving credit facility and commercial paper notes outstanding and (ii) the scheduled repayment of maturing senior debt obligations, our consolidated debt obligations at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K. See Note 9 for additional information regarding our consolidated debt obligations. Operating Lease Obligations. Consolidated lease and rental expense was $22.4 million and $23.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Our operating lease commitments at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K. Purchase Obligations. Our consolidated purchase obligations at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K.

Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

As part of our normal business activities, we may be named as defendants in legal proceedings, including those arising from regulatory and environmental matters. Although we are insured against various risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to fully indemnify us against losses arising from future legal proceedings. We will vigorously defend the partnership in litigation matters.

Management has regular quarterly litigation reviews, including updates from legal counsel, to assess the possible need for accounting recognition and disclosure of these contingencies. We accrue an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of probable loss amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum amount in the range is accrued.

We do not record a contingent liability when the likelihood of loss is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the likelihood of loss is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the impact would be material to our consolidated financial statements, we disclose the nature of the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Based on a consideration of all relevant known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome of any currently pending litigation directed against us will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements either individually at the claim level or in the aggregate.

At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our accruals for litigation contingencies were $2.4 million and were recorded in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as a component of “Other current liabilities.” Our evaluation of litigation contingencies is based on the facts and circumstances of each case and predicting the outcome of these matters involves uncertainties. In the event the assumptions we use to evaluate these matters change in future periods or new information becomes available, we may be required to record additional accruals. In an effort to mitigate expenses associated with litigation, we may settle legal proceedings out of court.

ETP Matter. In connection with a proposed pipeline project, we and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) signed a non-binding letter of intent in April 2011 that disclaimed any partnership or joint venture related to such project absent executed definitive documents and board approvals of the respective companies. Definitive agreements were never executed and board approval was never obtained for the potential pipeline project. In August 2011, the proposed pipeline project was cancelled due to a lack of customer support.

In September 2011, ETP filed suit against us and a third party in connection with the cancelled project alleging, among other things, that we and ETP had formed a “partnership.” The case was tried in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 298th Judicial District. While we firmly believe, and argued during our defense, that no agreement was ever executed forming a legal joint venture or partnership between the parties, the jury found that the actions of the two companies, nevertheless, constituted a legal partnership. As a result, the jury found that ETP was wrongfully excluded from a subsequent pipeline project involving a third party, and awarded ETP $319.4 million in actual damages on March 4, 2014. On July 29, 2014, the court entered judgment against us in an aggregate amount of $535.8 million, which includes (i) $319.4 million as the amount of actual damages awarded by the jury, (ii) an additional $150.0 million in disgorgement for the alleged benefit we received due to a breach of fiduciary duties by us against ETP and (iii) prejudgment interest in the amount of $66.4 million. The court also awarded post-judgment interest on such aggregate amount, to accrue at a rate of 5% per annum, compounded annually.

We do not believe that the verdict or the judgment entered against us is supported by the evidence or the law. On March 30, 2015, we filed our Brief of the Appellant in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Dallas, Texas and intend to vigorously oppose the judgment through the appeals process. As of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded a provision for this matter as management believes payment of damages in this case is not probable.

FTC Matter. On February 23, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand and a related Subpoena Duces Tecum from the FTC requesting specified information relating to the Oiltanking acquisition and Enterprise’s operations. On April 13, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand issued by the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting copies of the same information and any correspondence with the FTC. We are in the process of complying with the requests and are cooperating with the investigations. Based on the limited information that we have at this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigations.

Contractual Obligations

Scheduled Maturities of Debt. With the exception of (i) routine fluctuations in the balances of our revolving credit facility and commercial paper notes outstanding and (ii) the scheduled repayment of maturing senior debt obligations, our consolidated debt obligations at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K. See Note 9 for additional information regarding our consolidated debt obligations.

Operating Lease Obligations. Consolidated lease and rental expense was $22.4 million and $23.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Our operating lease commitments at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K.

Purchase Obligations. Our consolidated purchase obligations at March 31, 2015 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2014 Form 10-K.