Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Clean Air Act - Section 185 Liability Section 185 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA 185") requires states under certain conditions to collect annual fees from major source facilities located in severe or extreme nonattainment ozone areas. Imposition of the fee is mandated for each calendar year after the attainment date until the area is redesignated as an attainment area for ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is required to collect the fees if a state does not administer and enforce CAA 185. The Houston-Galveston region was initially determined to be a severe nonattainment area that did not meet its 2007 attainment deadline and, as such, would be subject to CAA 185. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") drafted a "Failure to Attain Rule" to implement the requirements of CAA 185. The initial Failure to Attain Rule was scheduled to be final in the spring of 2010 and would have provided for the collection of an annual failure to attain fee for emissions from calendar year 2008 forward. We have certain facilities in the Houston area that would have been subject to the TCEQ's Rule. The initial Failure to Attain Rule was rejected by a federal court decision in July 2011. The TCEQ is now considering a new rule. Management believes it is probable that the TCEQ will move forward with a new CAA 185 rule making process. A number of potential alternative outcomes exist, including the possibility no CAA 185 fees will be assessed to us for the period of 2008 through 2010. However, management believes it is probable we will be assessed fees for excess emissions at our Houston-area facilities for that period and estimates that the range of fees that could be assessed to us to be between $6.4 million and $13.7 million. We have recorded an accrual of $8.9 million related to this matter for the period of 2008 through 2010. This accrual is reflected as a long-term environmental liability at June 30, 2012. Osage Complaint On June 25, 2012, HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC ("HollyFrontier") filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") alleging that Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC ("Osage") has been over-earning on its rates for transportation on Osage's crude oil pipeline system from Cushing, Oklahoma to El Dorado, Kansas. We own 50% of Osage and serve as its operator. We believe that it is reasonably possible that Osage could incur a liability as a result of this complaint. As a 50% owner of Osage, we currently estimate that our ultimate exposure in this matter will be within a range of zero to approximately $5.5 million. We believe the claims should be denied and are defending the Osage rates vigorously. MF Global Holdings Ltd. Bankruptcy In October 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd., the parent of MF Global Inc. ("MF Global"), filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws, and a trustee was appointed to oversee the liquidation of MF Global under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA"). At that time, MF Global served as our sole clearing agent for NYMEX futures contracts. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") requires us to maintain adequate margin against our NYMEX positions, which our clearing agent is required to hold on our behalf in a segregated account. In October 2011, MF Global disclosed to the CME that it had a "significant shortfall" in its segregated customer accounts. We transferred our existing trading positions at MF Global to a new clearing agent in November 2011, and all of our NYMEX activity is now being conducted with a different clearing agent. As of the date of transfer of our account, MF Global owed us $29.4 million; however, we have subsequently received $21.2 million as partial payment on our account. We have submitted a claim with the Trustee for the SIPA liquidation of MF Global for $8.2 million, which represents the remaining amount owed to us by MF Global. At this point it is uncertain what additional funds MF Global will have available for distribution to its former customers as well as how the claims against MF Global's remaining assets may be prioritized. As of June 30, 2012, we have not reserved any of our MF Global receivable balance. Environmental Liabilities Liabilities recognized for estimated environmental costs were $49.6 million and $43.6 million at December 31, 2011 and June 30, 2012, respectively. We have classified environmental liabilities as current or noncurrent based on management's estimates regarding the timing of actual payments. Management estimates that expenditures associated with these environmental liabilities will be paid over the next 10 years. Environmental expenses recognized as a result of changes in our environmental liabilities are included in operating expenses on our consolidated statements of income. Environmental expenses were $8.6 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2012, respectively, and $12.5 million and $2.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2012, respectively. The higher environmental expenses in 2011 were primarily due to the CAA 185 liability accrual (described above). Environmental Receivables Receivables from insurance carriers and other third parties related to environmental matters at December 31, 2011 were $7.7 million, of which $5.2 million and $2.5 million were recorded to other accounts receivable and long-term receivables, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. Receivables from insurance carriers related to environmental matters at June 30, 2012 were $7.8 million, of which $4.7 million and $3.1 million were recorded to other accounts receivable and long-term receivables, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. Unrecognized Product Gains Our petroleum terminals operations generate product overages and shortages that result from metering inaccuracies and product evaporation, expansion, releases and contamination. Most of the contracts we have with our customers state that we bear the risk of loss (or gain) from these conditions. When our petroleum terminals experience net product shortages, we recognize expense for those losses in the periods in which they occur. When our petroleum terminals experience net product overages, we have product on hand for which we have no cost basis. Therefore, these net overages are not recognized in our financial statements until the associated barrels are either sold or used to offset product losses. The net unrecognized product overages for our petroleum terminals operations had a market value of approximately $2.8 million as of June 30, 2012. However, the actual amounts we will recognize in future periods will depend on product prices at the time the associated barrels are either sold or used to offset net future product shortages. Other We are a party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. While the results cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the ultimate resolution of these claims, legal actions and complaints after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage or other indemnification arrangements will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Clean Air Act - Section 185 Liability

Section 185 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA 185") requires states under certain conditions to collect annual fees from major source facilities located in severe or extreme nonattainment ozone areas. Imposition of the fee is mandated for each calendar year after the attainment date until the area is redesignated as an attainment area for ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is required to collect the fees if a state does not administer and enforce CAA 185. The Houston-Galveston region was initially determined to be a severe nonattainment area that did not meet its 2007 attainment deadline and, as such, would be subject to CAA 185. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") drafted a "Failure to Attain Rule" to implement the requirements of CAA 185. The initial Failure to Attain Rule was scheduled to be final in the spring of 2010 and would have provided for the collection of an annual failure to attain fee for emissions from calendar year 2008 forward. We have certain facilities in the Houston area that would have been subject to the TCEQ's Rule. The initial Failure to Attain Rule was rejected by a federal court decision in July 2011. The TCEQ is now considering a new rule.

Management believes it is probable that the TCEQ will move forward with a new CAA 185 rule making process. A number of potential alternative outcomes exist, including the possibility no CAA 185 fees will be assessed to us for the period of 2008 through 2010. However, management believes it is probable we will be assessed fees for excess emissions at our Houston-area facilities for that period and estimates that the range of fees that could be assessed to us to be between $6.4 million and $13.7 million. We have recorded an accrual of $8.9 million related to this matter for the period of 2008 through 2010. This accrual is reflected as a long-term environmental liability at June 30, 2012.

Osage Complaint

On June 25, 2012, HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC ("HollyFrontier") filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") alleging that Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC ("Osage") has been over-earning on its rates for transportation on Osage's crude oil pipeline system from Cushing, Oklahoma to El Dorado, Kansas. We own 50% of Osage and serve as its operator. We believe that it is reasonably possible that Osage could incur a liability as a result of this complaint. As a 50% owner of Osage, we currently estimate that our ultimate exposure in this matter will be within a range of zero to approximately $5.5 million. We believe the claims should be denied and are defending the Osage rates vigorously.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. Bankruptcy

In October 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd., the parent of MF Global Inc. ("MF Global"), filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws, and a trustee was appointed to oversee the liquidation of MF Global under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA"). At that time, MF Global served as our sole clearing agent for NYMEX futures contracts.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") requires us to maintain adequate margin against our NYMEX positions, which our clearing agent is required to hold on our behalf in a segregated account. In October 2011, MF Global disclosed to the CME that it had a "significant shortfall" in its segregated customer accounts. We transferred our existing trading positions at MF Global to a new clearing agent in November 2011, and all of our NYMEX activity is now being conducted with a different clearing agent.

As of the date of transfer of our account, MF Global owed us $29.4 million; however, we have subsequently received $21.2 million as partial payment on our account. We have submitted a claim with the Trustee for the SIPA liquidation of MF Global for $8.2 million, which represents the remaining amount owed to us by MF Global. At this point it is uncertain what additional funds MF Global will have available for distribution to its former customers as well as how the claims against MF Global's remaining assets may be prioritized. As of June 30, 2012, we have not reserved any of our MF Global receivable balance.

Environmental Liabilities

Liabilities recognized for estimated environmental costs were $49.6 million and $43.6 million at December 31, 2011 and June 30, 2012, respectively. We have classified environmental liabilities as current or noncurrent based on management's estimates regarding the timing of actual payments. Management estimates that expenditures associated with these environmental liabilities will be paid over the next 10 years. Environmental expenses recognized as a result of changes in our environmental liabilities are included in operating expenses on our consolidated statements of income. Environmental expenses were $8.6 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2012, respectively, and $12.5 million and $2.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2012, respectively. The higher environmental expenses in 2011 were primarily due to the CAA 185 liability accrual (described above).

Environmental Receivables

Receivables from insurance carriers and other third parties related to environmental matters at December 31, 2011 were $7.7 million, of which $5.2 million and $2.5 million were recorded to other accounts receivable and long-term receivables, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. Receivables from insurance carriers related to environmental matters at June 30, 2012 were $7.8 million, of which $4.7 million and $3.1 million were recorded to other accounts receivable and long-term receivables, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets.

Unrecognized Product Gains

Our petroleum terminals operations generate product overages and shortages that result from metering inaccuracies and product evaporation, expansion, releases and contamination. Most of the contracts we have with our customers state that we bear the risk of loss (or gain) from these conditions. When our petroleum terminals experience net product shortages, we recognize expense for those losses in the periods in which they occur. When our petroleum terminals experience net product overages, we have product on hand for which we have no cost basis. Therefore, these net overages are not recognized in our financial statements until the associated barrels are either sold or used to offset product losses. The net unrecognized product overages for our petroleum terminals operations had a market value of approximately $2.8 million as of June 30, 2012. However, the actual amounts we will recognize in future periods will depend on product prices at the time the associated barrels are either sold or used to offset net future product shortages.

Other

We are a party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. While the results cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the ultimate resolution of these claims, legal actions and complaints after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage or other indemnification arrangements will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.