Guarantees and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Guarantees and Contingencies	11. Guarantees and Contingencies We are subject to loss contingencies with respect to various claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. A liability is recognized in our consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the risk of loss is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or the risk of loss is only reasonably possible, a liability is not accrued; however, we disclose the nature of those contingencies. We cannot predict with certainty if, how or when existing claims, lawsuits and proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through lengthy discovery, conciliation and/or arbitration proceedings, or litigation before a loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Subject to the foregoing, in management’s opinion, based upon currently known facts and circumstances, the outcome of such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, including the matters described below, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements, or revise our opinion regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. We, along with many companies that have been or continue to be engaged in refining and marketing of gasoline, have been a party to lawsuits and claims related to the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline. A series of similar lawsuits, many involving water utilities or governmental entities, were filed in jurisdictions across the U.S. against producers of MTBE and petroleum refiners who produced gasoline containing MTBE, including us. The principal allegation in all cases was that gasoline containing MTBE was a defective product and that these producers and refiners are strictly liable in proportion to their share of the gasoline market for damage to groundwater resources and are required to take remedial action to ameliorate the alleged effects on the environment of releases of MTBE. The majority of the cases asserted against us have been settled. There are four remaining active cases, filed by Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland. In June 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Vermont each filed independent lawsuits alleging that we and all major oil companies with operations in each respective state, have damaged the groundwater in those states by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The Pennsylvania suit has been removed to Federal court and has been forwarded to the existing MTBE multidistrict litigation pending in the Southern District of New York. The suit filed in Vermont is proceeding there in a state court. In September 2016, the State of Rhode Island also filed a lawsuit alleging that we and other major oil companies damaged the groundwater in Rhode Island by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The suit filed in Rhode Island is proceeding in Federal court. In December 2017, the State of Maryland filed a lawsuit alleging that we and other major oil companies damaged the groundwater in Maryland by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The suit filed in Maryland state court, was served on us in January 2018 and has been removed to federal court by the defendants. In September 2003, we received a directive from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to remediate contamination in the sediments of the Lower Passaic River. The NJDEP is also seeking natural resource damages. The directive, insofar as it affects us, relates to alleged releases from a petroleum bulk storage terminal in Newark, New Jersey we previously owned. We and over 70 companies entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the same contamination; this work remains ongoing. We and other parties settled a cost recovery claim by the State of New Jersey and also agreed with EPA to fund remediation of a portion of the site. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in respect of the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River, selecting a remedy that includes bank-to-bank dredging at an estimated cost of $1.38 billion. The ROD does not address the upper nine miles of the Lower Passaic River or the Newark Bay, which may require additional remedial action. In addition, the federal trustees for natural resources have begun a separate assessment of damages to natural resources in the Passaic River. Given that the EPA has not selected a remedy for the entirety of the Lower Passaic River or the Newark Bay, total remedial costs cannot be reliably estimated at this time. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter will result in a significant liability to us because our former terminal did not store or use contaminants which are of concern in the river sediments and could not have contributed contamination along the river’s length. Further, there are numerous other parties who we expect will bear the cost of remediation and damages. In March 2014, we received an Administrative Order from EPA requiring us and 26 other parties to undertake the Remedial Design for the remedy selected by the EPA for the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site in Brooklyn, New York. The remedy includes dredging of surface sediments and the placement of a cap over the deeper sediments throughout the Canal and in-situ stabilization of certain contaminated sediments that will remain in place below the cap. EPA has estimated that this remedy will cost $506 million; however, the ultimate costs that will be incurred in connection with the design and implementation of the remedy remain uncertain. Our alleged liability derives from our former ownership and operation of a fuel oil terminal and connected ship-building and repair facility adjacent to the Canal. We indicated to EPA that we would comply with the Administrative Order and are currently contributing funding for the Remedial Design based on an interim allocation of costs among the parties. At the same time, we are participating in an allocation process whereby a neutral expert selected by the parties will determine the final shares of the Remedial Design costs to be paid by each of the participants. On September 28, 2017, we received a general notice letter and offer to settle from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relating to Superfund claims for the Ector Drum, Inc. Superfund Site in Odessa, TX. The EPA and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) took clean-up and response action at the site commencing in 2014 and concluded in December 2015. The site was determined to have improperly stored industrial waste, including drums with oily liquids. The total clean-up cost incurred by the EPA was approximately $3.5 million. We were invited to negotiate a voluntary settlement for our purported share of the clean-up costs. Our share, if any, is undetermined. From time to time, we are involved in other judicial and administrative proceedings, including proceedings relating to other environmental matters. We cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters before a loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, in management’s opinion, based upon currently known facts and circumstances, the outcome of the aforementioned proceedings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

11. Guarantees and Contingencies

We are subject to loss contingencies with respect to various claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. A liability is recognized in our consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the risk of loss is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or the risk of loss is only reasonably possible, a liability is not accrued; however, we disclose the nature of those contingencies. We cannot predict with certainty if, how or when existing claims, lawsuits and proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through lengthy discovery, conciliation and/or arbitration proceedings, or litigation before a loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Subject to the foregoing, in management’s opinion, based upon currently known facts and circumstances, the outcome of such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, including the matters described below, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements, or revise our opinion regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.

We, along with many companies that have been or continue to be engaged in refining and marketing of gasoline, have been a party to lawsuits and claims related to the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline. A series of similar lawsuits, many involving water utilities or governmental entities, were filed in jurisdictions across the U.S. against producers of MTBE and petroleum refiners who produced gasoline containing MTBE, including us. The principal allegation in all cases was that gasoline containing MTBE was a defective product and that these producers and refiners are strictly liable in proportion to their share of the gasoline market for damage to groundwater resources and are required to take remedial action to ameliorate the alleged effects on the environment of releases of MTBE. The majority of the cases asserted against us have been settled. There are four remaining active cases, filed by Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland. In June 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Vermont each filed independent lawsuits alleging that we and all major oil companies with operations in each respective state, have damaged the groundwater in those states by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The Pennsylvania suit has been removed to Federal court and has been forwarded to the existing MTBE multidistrict litigation pending in the Southern District of New York. The suit filed in Vermont is proceeding there in a state court. In September 2016, the State of Rhode Island also filed a lawsuit alleging that we and other major oil companies damaged the groundwater in Rhode Island by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The suit filed in Rhode Island is proceeding in Federal court. In December 2017, the State of Maryland filed a lawsuit alleging that we and other major oil companies damaged the groundwater in Maryland by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The suit filed in Maryland state court, was served on us in January 2018 and has been removed to federal court by the defendants.

In September 2003, we received a directive from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to remediate contamination in the sediments of the Lower Passaic River. The NJDEP is also seeking natural resource damages. The directive, insofar as it affects us, relates to alleged releases from a petroleum bulk storage terminal in Newark, New Jersey we previously owned. We and over 70 companies entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the same contamination; this work remains ongoing. We and other parties settled a cost recovery claim by the State of New Jersey and also agreed with EPA to fund remediation of a portion of the site. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in respect of the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River, selecting a remedy that includes bank-to-bank dredging at an estimated cost of $1.38 billion. The ROD does not address the upper nine miles of the Lower Passaic River or the Newark Bay, which may require additional remedial action. In addition, the federal trustees for natural resources have begun a separate assessment of damages to natural resources in the Passaic River. Given that the EPA has not selected a remedy for the entirety of the Lower Passaic River or the Newark Bay, total remedial costs cannot be reliably estimated at this time. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter will result in a significant liability to us because our former terminal did not store or use contaminants which are of concern in the river sediments and could not have contributed contamination along the river’s length. Further, there are numerous other parties who we expect will bear the cost of remediation and damages.

In March 2014, we received an Administrative Order from EPA requiring us and 26 other parties to undertake the Remedial Design for the remedy selected by the EPA for the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site in Brooklyn, New York. The remedy includes dredging of surface sediments and the placement of a cap over the deeper sediments throughout the Canal and in-situ stabilization of certain contaminated sediments that will remain in place below the cap. EPA has estimated that this remedy will cost $506 million; however, the ultimate costs that will be incurred in connection with the design and implementation of the remedy remain uncertain. Our alleged liability derives from our former ownership and operation of a fuel oil terminal and connected ship-building and repair facility adjacent to the Canal. We indicated to EPA that we would comply with the Administrative Order and are currently contributing funding for the Remedial Design based on an interim allocation of costs among the parties. At the same time, we are participating in an allocation process whereby a neutral expert selected by the parties will determine the final shares of the Remedial Design costs to be paid by each of the participants.

On September 28, 2017, we received a general notice letter and offer to settle from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relating to Superfund claims for the Ector Drum, Inc. Superfund Site in Odessa, TX. The EPA and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) took clean-up and response action at the site commencing in 2014 and concluded in December 2015. The site was determined to have improperly stored industrial waste, including drums with oily liquids. The total clean-up cost incurred by the EPA was approximately $3.5 million. We were invited to negotiate a voluntary settlement for our purported share of the clean-up costs. Our share, if any, is undetermined.

From time to time, we are involved in other judicial and administrative proceedings, including proceedings relating to other environmental matters. We cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters before a loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding.

Subject to the foregoing, in management’s opinion, based upon currently known facts and circumstances, the outcome of the aforementioned proceedings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.