Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Contingent Liabilities and Commitments [Abstract]

Contingent Liabilities

Note 12. Contingent Liabilities

Indemnification of WPX Matters

We have agreed to indemnify our former affiliate, WPX and its subsidiaries, related to the following matters. In connection with this indemnification, we have retained applicable accrued asset and liability balances associated with these matters, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to future developments in these matters.

Issues resulting from California energy crisis

WPX's former power business was engaged in power marketing in various geographic areas, including California. Prices charged for power by WPX and other traders and generators in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001 were challenged in various proceedings, including those before the FERC. WPX has entered into settlements with the State of California (State Settlement), major California utilities (Utilities Settlement), and others that substantially resolved each of these issues with these parties.

Although the State Settlement and Utilities Settlement resolved a significant portion of the refund issues among the settling parties, WPX continues to have potential refund exposure to nonsettling parties, including various California end users that did not participate in the Utilities Settlement.WPXand certain California utilities have agreed in principle to resolve WPX's collection of accrued interest from counterparties as well as WPX's payment of accrued interest on refund amounts. As currently contemplated by the parties, the settlement, which is subject to FERC and California regulatory approval, would resolve most of WPX's legal issues arising from the 2000-2001 California Energy Crisis. We currently have a net receivable from WPX related to these matters.

Reporting of natural gas-related information to trade publications

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. WPX and the other defendants intend to seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items and our related indemnification obligation could result in future charges that may be material to our results of operations.

Other Legal Matters

Geismar Incident

As a result of the previously discussed Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious. WPZ is cooperating with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Chemical Safety Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct investigations to determine the cause of the incident. Also, on June 28, 2013, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice of Potential Penalty to Williams Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of unpermitted emissions and other deviations under the Clean Air Act that the parties had been negotiating since 2010 and alleged unpermitted emissions arising from the Geismar Incident. Any potential fines and penalties from these agencies would not be covered by our insurance policy. Additionally, multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, and personal injury, have been filed against various of our subsidiaries.

Due to the recent nature of the incident, the preliminary and ongoing investigation into its cause, and the limited information available associated with the filed lawsuits, which do not specify any amounts for claimed damages, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss related to these lawsuits at this time.

Gulf Liquids litigation

Gulf Liquids contracted with Gulsby Engineering Inc. (Gulsby) and Gulsby-Bay (a joint venture between Gulsby and Bay Ltd.) for the construction of certain gas processing plants in Louisiana. National American Insurance Company (NAICO) and American Home Assurance Company provided payment and performance bonds for the projects. In 2001, the contractors and sureties filed multiple cases in Louisiana and Texas against Gulf Liquids and us.

In 2006, at the conclusion of the consolidated trial of the asserted contract and tort claims, the jury returned its actual and punitive damages verdict against us and Gulf Liquids. Based on our interpretation of the jury verdicts, we recorded a charge based on our estimated exposure for actual damages of approximately $68 million plus potential interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, we concluded that it was reasonably possible that any ultimate judgment might have included additional amounts of approximately $199 million in excess of our accrual, which primarily represented our estimate of potential punitive damage exposure under Texas law.

From May through October 2007, the court entered seven post-trial orders in the case (interlocutory orders) which, among other things, overruled the verdict award of tort and punitive damages as well as any damages against us. The court also denied the plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees. On January 28, 2008, the court issued its judgment awarding damages against Gulf Liquids of approximately $11 million in favor of Gulsby and approximately $4 million in favor of Gulsby-Bay. Gulf Liquids, Gulsby, Gulsby-Bay, Bay Ltd., and NAICO appealed the judgment. In February 2009, we settled with certain of these parties and reduced our accrued liability as of December 31, 2008, by $43 million, including $11 million of interest. On February 17, 2011, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the dismissals of the tort and punitive damages claims. As a result, we reduced our accrued liability as of December 31, 2011 by $33 million, including $14 million of interest.The Texas Court of Appeals also reversed and remanded the remaining claims for further proceedings. None of the parties filed a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. On May 8, 2012, the Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate remanding the original breach of contract claims involving Gulsby and attorney fee claims (the remaining claims) to trial court.

Alaska refinery contamination litigation

In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI),and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA),a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc.,as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA have made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA.We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. Our claims against FHRA and their claims against us remain outstanding. We and FHRA filed motions for summary judgment on the other's claims, but the motions are unlikely to resolve all the outstanding claims.

We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount.

Independent of the litigation matter described in the preceding paragraphs, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicated that it views FHRA and us as responsible parties. During the first quarter 2013, ADEC informed FHRA and us that it intends to enter a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work outside the refinery's boundaries to be performed in 2014. In addition, ADEC will seek from each of FHRA and us an adequate financial performance guarantee for the benefit of ADEC. As such, we will likely be required to contribute some amount, whether to reimburse the State, to reimburse FHRA, or to comply with an ADEC order. Due to the ongoing assessment of the level and extent of sulfolane contamination and the ultimate cost of remediation and division of costs between the named responsible parties, we are unable to estimate a range of liability at this time.

Other

In 2003, we entered into an agreement to sublease certain underground storage facilities to Liberty Gas Storage (Liberty). We have asserted claims against Liberty for prematurely terminating the sublease and for damage caused to the facilities. In February 2011, Liberty asserted a counterclaim for costs in excess of $200 million associated with its use of the facilities. Due to the lack of information currently available, we are unable to evaluate the merits of the counterclaim and determine the amount of any possible liability.

On August 31, 2012, Transco submitted to the FERC a general rate filing principally designed to recover increased costs and to comply with the terms of the settlement in our prior rate proceeding. The new rates became effective March 1, 2013, subject to refund and the outcome of the hearing. Transco has reached an agreement in principle with the participants that would resolve all issues in this proceeding without the need for a hearing. Final resolution of the rate case is subject to the filing of a formal stipulation and agreement and subsequent approval by the FERC. We have provided a reserve for rate refunds which we believe is adequate for any refunds that may be required.

Environmental Matters

We are a participant in certain environmental activities in various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations and remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently do not own. We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated effort with other potentially responsible parties, the EPA, and other governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities and solely responsible in others. Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred, or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental laws. As of June 30, 2013, we have accrued liabilities totaling $48million for these matters, as discussed below. Our accrual reflects the most likely costs of cleanup, which are generally based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of studies or our experience with other similar cleanup operations. Certain assessment studies are still in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield significantly different estimates of most likely costs. Any incremental amount in excess of amounts currently accrued cannot be reasonably estimated at this time due to uncertainty about the actual number of contaminated sites ultimately identified, the actual amount and extent of contamination discovered and the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA and other governmental authorities.

The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely promulgate and propose new rules, and issue updated guidance to existing rules.  More recent rules and rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine maximum achievable control technology, new air quality standards for ground level ozone, and one hour nitrogen dioxide emission limits.  We are unable to estimate the costs of asset additions or modifications necessary to comply with these new regulations due to uncertainty created by the various legal challenges to these regulations and the need for further specific regulatory guidance.

Continuing operations

Our interstate gas pipelines are involved in remediation activities related to certain facilities and locations for polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, and other hazardous substances.  These activities haveinvolved the EPA and various state environmental authorities, resulting in our identification as a potentially responsible party at various Superfund waste sites.At June 30, 2013, we have accrued liabilities of $11million for these costs.  We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates.

We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination. At June 30, 2013, we have accrued liabilities totaling $9million for these costs.

Former operations, including operations classified as discontinued

We have potential obligations in connection with assets and businesses we no longer operate. These potential obligations include the indemnification of the purchasers of certain of these assets and businesses for environmental and other liabilities existing at the time the sale was consummated. Our responsibilities relate to the operations of the assets and businesses described below.

• Former agricultural fertilizer and chemical operations and former retail petroleum and refining operations;
• Former petroleum products and natural gas pipelines;
• Former petroleum refining facilities;
• Former exploration and production and mining operations;
• Former electricity and natural gas marketing and trading operations.

At June 30, 2013, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $28million related to these matters.

Other Divestiture Indemnifications

Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax, historic litigation, personal injury, property damage, environmental matters, right of way and other representations that we have provided.

At June 30, 2013, other than as previously disclosed, we are not aware of any material claims involving the indemnities; thus, we do not expect any of the indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a material impact on our future financial position. Any claim for indemnity brought against us in the future may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the claim is made.

In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are pending against us which are incidental to our operations.

Summary

We have disclosed our estimated range of reasonably possible losses for certain matters above, as well as all significant matters for which we are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. We estimate that for all other matters for which we are able to reasonably estimate a range of loss, our aggregate reasonably possible losses beyond amounts accrued are immaterial to our expected future annual results of operations, liquidity and financial position. These calculations have been made without consideration of any potential recovery from third parties.