Environmental and Other Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Environmental and Other Contingencies	Note M – Environmental and Other Contingencies The Company’s operations and earnings have been and may be affected by various forms of governmental action both in the United States and throughout the world. Examples of such governmental action include, but are by no means limited to: tax increases and retroactive tax claims; royalty and revenue sharing increases; import and export controls; price controls; currency controls; allocation of supplies of crude oil and petroleum products and other goods; expropriation of property; restrictions and preferences affecting the issuance of oil and gas or mineral leases; restrictions on drilling and/or production; laws and regulations intended for the promotion of safety and the protection and/or remediation of the environment; governmental support for other forms of energy; and laws and regulations affecting the Company’s relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, stockholders and others. Because governmental actions are often motivated by political considerations and may be taken without full consideration of their consequences, and may be taken in response to actions of other governments, it is not practical to attempt to predict the likelihood of such actions, the form the actions may take or the effect such actions may have on the Company. Murphy and other companies in the oil and gas industry are subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations dealing with the environment. Violation of federal or state environmental laws, regulations and permits can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties, injunctions and construction bans or delays. A discharge of hazardous substances into the environment could, to the extent such event is not insured, subject the Company to substantial expense, including both the cost to comply with applicable regulations and claims by neighboring landowners and other third parties for any personal injury and property damage that might result. The Company currently owns or leases, and has in the past owned or leased, properties at which hazardous substances have been or are being handled. Although the Company has used operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hazardous substances may have been disposed of or released on or under the properties owned or leased by the Company or on or under other locations where these wastes have been taken for disposal. In addition, many of these properties have been operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal or release of hydrocarbons or other wastes were not under Murphy’s control. Under existing laws the Company could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators), to clean up contaminated property (including contaminated groundwater) or to perform remedial plugging operations to prevent future contamination. While some of these historical properties are in various stages of negotiation, investigation, and/or cleanup, the Company is investigating the extent of any such liability and the availability of applicable defenses. With the sale of the U.S. refineries in 2011, the Company retained certain liabilities related to environmental matters at these sites. The Company also has insurance covering certain levels of environmental expenses at the refinery sites. The Company believes costs related to these sites will not have a material adverse affect on Murphy’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently considers the Company to be a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at one Superfund site. The potential total cost to all parties to perform necessary remedial work at the Superfund site may be substantial. However, based on current negotiations and available information, the Company believes that it is a de minimis party as to ultimate responsibility at the Superfund site. The Company has not recorded a liability for remedial costs on the Superfund site. The Company could be required to bear a pro rata share of costs attributable to nonparticipating PRPs or could be assigned additional responsibility for remediation at this site or other Superfund sites. The Company believes that its share of the ultimate costs to clean-up the Superfund site will be immaterial and will not have a material adverse effect on its net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. There is the possibility that environmental expenditures could be required at currently unidentified sites, and new or revised regulations could require additional expenditures at known sites. However, based on information currently available to the Company, the amount of future remediation costs incurred at known or currently unidentified sites is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future net income, cash flows or liquidity. In 2011, Murphy was notified by the U.K. Environment Agency (EA) that it failed to surrender sufficient greenhouse gas emission allowances, which Murphy self-reported to the EA in 2010. The EA has issued a civil penalty notice of approximately $1.7 million. The Company is pursuing all available options regarding this matter. Murphy and its subsidiaries are engaged in a number of other legal proceedings, all of which Murphy considers routine and incidental to its business. Based on information currently available to the Company, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. In the normal course of its business, the Company is required under certain contracts with various governmental authorities and others to provide financial guarantees or letters of credit that may be drawn upon if the Company fails to perform under those contracts. At June 30, 2012, the Company had contingent liabilities of $164.7 million on outstanding letters of credit. The Company has not accrued a liability in its Consolidated Balance Sheets related to these letters of credit because it is believed that the likelihood of having these drawn is remote.

Note M – Environmental and Other Contingencies

The Company’s operations and earnings have been and may be affected by various forms of governmental action both in the United States and throughout the world. Examples of such governmental action include, but are by no means limited to: tax increases and retroactive tax claims; royalty and revenue sharing increases; import and export controls; price controls; currency controls; allocation of supplies of crude oil and petroleum products and other goods; expropriation of property; restrictions and preferences affecting the issuance of oil and gas or mineral leases; restrictions on drilling and/or production; laws and regulations intended for the promotion of safety and the protection and/or remediation of the environment; governmental support for other forms of energy; and laws and regulations affecting the Company’s relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, stockholders and others. Because governmental actions are often motivated by political considerations and may be taken without full consideration of their consequences, and may be taken in response to actions of other governments, it is not practical to attempt to predict the likelihood of such actions, the form the actions may take or the effect such actions may have on the Company.

Murphy and other companies in the oil and gas industry are subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations dealing with the environment. Violation of federal or state environmental laws, regulations and permits can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties, injunctions and construction bans or delays. A discharge of hazardous substances into the environment could, to the extent such event is not insured, subject the Company to substantial expense, including both the cost to comply with applicable regulations and claims by neighboring landowners and other third parties for any personal injury and property damage that might result.

The Company currently owns or leases, and has in the past owned or leased, properties at which hazardous substances have been or are being handled. Although the Company has used operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hazardous substances may have been disposed of or released on or under the properties owned or leased by the Company or on or under other locations where these wastes have been taken for disposal. In addition, many of these properties have been operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal or release of hydrocarbons or other wastes were not under Murphy’s control. Under existing laws the Company could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators), to clean up contaminated property (including contaminated groundwater) or to perform remedial plugging operations to prevent future contamination. While some of these historical properties are in various stages of

negotiation, investigation, and/or cleanup, the Company is investigating the extent of any such liability and the availability of applicable defenses. With the sale of the U.S. refineries in 2011, the Company retained certain liabilities related to environmental matters at these sites. The Company also has insurance covering certain levels of environmental expenses at the refinery sites. The Company believes costs related to these sites will not have a material adverse affect on Murphy’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently considers the Company to be a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at one Superfund site. The potential total cost to all parties to perform necessary remedial work at the Superfund site may be substantial. However, based on current negotiations and available information, the Company believes that it is a de minimis party as to ultimate responsibility at the Superfund site. The Company has not recorded a liability for remedial costs on the Superfund site. The Company could be required to bear a pro rata share of costs attributable to nonparticipating PRPs or could be assigned additional responsibility for remediation at this site or other Superfund sites. The Company believes that its share of the ultimate costs to clean-up the Superfund site will be immaterial and will not have a material adverse effect on its net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period.

There is the possibility that environmental expenditures could be required at currently unidentified sites, and new or revised regulations could require additional expenditures at known sites. However, based on information currently available to the Company, the amount of future remediation costs incurred at known or currently unidentified sites is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future net income, cash flows or liquidity.

In 2011, Murphy was notified by the U.K. Environment Agency (EA) that it failed to surrender sufficient greenhouse gas emission allowances, which Murphy self-reported to the EA in 2010. The EA has issued a civil penalty notice of approximately $1.7 million. The Company is pursuing all available options regarding this matter.

Murphy and its subsidiaries are engaged in a number of other legal proceedings, all of which Murphy considers routine and incidental to its business. Based on information currently available to the Company, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period.

In the normal course of its business, the Company is required under certain contracts with various governmental authorities and others to provide financial guarantees or letters of credit that may be drawn upon if the Company fails to perform under those contracts. At June 30, 2012, the Company had contingent liabilities of $164.7 million on outstanding letters of credit. The Company has not accrued a liability in its Consolidated Balance Sheets related to these letters of credit because it is believed that the likelihood of having these drawn is remote.