Guarantees, Contingencies and Commitments

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Guarantees, Contingencies and Commitments

18.  Guarantees, Contingencies and Commitments

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.

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 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 two remaining active cases, filed by Pennsylvania and Maryland. In June 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit alleging that we and all major oil companies with operations in Pennsylvania, have damaged the groundwater by introducing thereto gasoline with MTBE. The Pennsylvania suit has been forwarded to the existing MTBE multidistrict litigation pending in the Southern District of New York. 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 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 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 agreed with the EPA to fund remediation of a portion of the site. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a 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 final 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 the 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. Our alleged liability derives from our former ownership and operation of a fuel oil terminal and connected shipbuilding and repair facility adjacent to the Canal. The remedy selected by the EPA 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. The EPA’s original estimate was that this remedy would cost $506 million; however, the ultimate costs that will be incurred in connection with the design and implementation of the remedy remain uncertain. We have complied with the EPA’s March 2014 Administrative Order and contributed funding for the Remedial Design based on an allocation of costs among the parties determined by a third-party expert. In January 2020, we received an additional Administrative Order from the EPA requiring us and several other parties to begin Remedial Action along the uppermost portion of the Canal. We intend to comply with this Administrative Order. The remediation work began in the fourth quarter of 2020. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter will result in a significant liability to us, and the costs will continue to be allocated amongst the parties, as they were for the Remedial Design.

From time to time, we are involved in other judicial and administrative proceedings relating to environmental matters. We periodically receive notices from the EPA that we are a “potential responsible party” under the Superfund legislation with respect to various waste disposal sites. Under this legislation, all potentially responsible parties may be jointly and severally liable. For any site for which we have received such a notice, the EPA’s claims or assertions of liability against us relating to these sites have not been fully developed, or the EPA’s claims have been settled or a settlement is under consideration, in all cases for amounts that are not material. Beginning in 2017, certain states, municipalities and private associations in California, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island and South Carolina separately filed lawsuits against oil, gas and coal producers, including us, for alleged damages purportedly caused by climate change. These proceedings include claims for monetary damages and injunctive relief. Beginning in 2013, various parishes in Louisiana filed suit against approximately 100 oil and gas companies, including us, alleging that the companies’ operations and activities in certain fields violated the State and Local Coastal Resource Management Act of 1978, as amended, and caused contamination, subsidence and other environmental damages to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, the payment of the costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate and otherwise restore the allegedly impacted areas. The ultimate impact of such climate and other aforementioned environmental proceedings, and of any related proceedings by private parties, on our business or accounts cannot be predicted at this time due to the large number of other potentially responsible parties and the speculative nature of clean-up cost estimates.

We are also involved in other judicial and administrative proceedings from time to time in addition to the matters described above, including claims related to post-production deductions from royalty payments. We may also be exposed to future decommissioning liabilities for divested assets in the event the current or future owners of facilities previously owned by us are determined to be unable to perform such actions, whether due to bankruptcy or otherwise. 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 lawsuits, claims and proceedings, including the matters disclosed above, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. 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.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations and Commitments

The following table shows aggregate information for certain unconditional purchase obligations and commitments at December 31, 2021, which are not included elsewhere within these Consolidated Financial Statements:

			Payments Due by Period
	Total		2022		2023 and 2024		2025 and 2026		Thereafter
	(In millions)
Capital expenditures	$	3,263	$	1,028	$	1,458	$	777	$	—
Operating expenses	180		132		42		6		—
Transportation and related contracts	2,574		390		639		453		1,092