Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

We are named defendants in several lawsuits and respondents in certain governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not consider it reasonably possible that a loss resulting from such lawsuits or other proceedings in excess of any amounts accrued has been incurred that is expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Contingencies of Discontinued Operations

    In early 2018, we closed the Maritech Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement with Orinoco Natural Resources, LLC (“Orinoco”) that provided for the purchase by Orinoco of Maritech’s remaining oil and gas properties and related assets. Also in early 2018, we closed the Maritech Membership Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement with Orinoco that provided for the purchase by Orinoco of all of the outstanding membership interests in Maritech.

    Under the Maritech Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Orinoco assumed all of Maritech’s decommissioning liabilities related to the leases sold to Orinoco (the “Orinoco Lease Liabilities”) and, under the Maritech Membership Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement, Orinoco assumed all other liabilities of Maritech, including the decommissioning liabilities associated with the oil and gas properties previously sold by Maritech (the “Legacy Liabilities”), subject to certain limited exceptions unrelated to the decommissioning liabilities. To the extent that Maritech or Orinoco fails to satisfy decommissioning liabilities associated with any of the Orinoco Lease Liabilities or the Legacy Liabilities, we may be required to satisfy such liabilities under third party indemnity agreements and corporate guarantees that we previously provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior and other parties, respectively.

    Pursuant to a Bonding Agreement entered into as part of these transactions (the “Bonding Agreement”), Orinoco provided non-revocable performance bonds in an aggregate amount of $46.8 million to cover the performance by Orinoco and Maritech of the asset retirement obligations of Maritech (the “Initial Bonds”) and agreed to replace, within 90 days following the closing, the Initial Bonds with other non-revocable performance bonds, meeting certain requirements, in the aggregate sum of $47.0 million (collectively, the “Interim Replacement Bonds”). Orinoco further agreed to replace, within 180 days following the closing, the Interim Replacement Bonds with a maximum of three non-revocable performance bonds in the aggregate sum of $47.0 million, meeting certain requirements (the “Final Bonds”). Among the other requirements of the Final Bonds was that they must provide coverage for all of the asset retirement obligations of Maritech instead of only relating to specific properties. In the event Orinoco does not provide the Interim Replacement Bonds or the Final Bonds, Orinoco is required to make certain cash escrow payments to us.

    The payment obligations of Orinoco under the Bonding Agreement were guaranteed by Thomas M. Clarke and Ana M. Clarke pursuant to a separate guaranty agreement (the “Clarke Bonding Guaranty Agreement”). Orinoco has not delivered such replacement bonds and neither it nor the Clarkes has made any of the agreed upon cash escrow payments and we filed a lawsuit against Orinoco and the Clarkes to enforce the terms of the Bonding Agreement and the Clarke Bonding Guaranty Agreement. A summary judgment was initially granted in favor of Orinoco and the Clarkes which dismissed our claims against Orinoco under the Bonding Agreement and against the Clarkes under the Clarke Bonding Guaranty Agreement. We filed an appeal and also asked the trial court to grant a new trial on the summary judgment or to modify the judgment because we believe this judgment should not have

been granted. On November 5, 2019, the trial court signed an order granting our motion for new trial and vacating the prior order granting summary judgment for Orinoco and the Clarkes. The parties are awaiting direction from the court on a new scheduling order and/or trial setting. The Initial Bonds, which are non-revocable, remain in effect.

    If we become liable in the future for any decommissioning liability associated with any property covered by either an Initial Bond or an Interim Replacement Bond while such bonds are outstanding and the payment made to us under such bond is not sufficient to satisfy such liability, the Bonding Agreement provides that Orinoco will pay us an amount equal to such deficiency and if Orinoco fails to pay any such amount, such amount must be paid by the Clarkes under the Clarke Bonding Guaranty Agreement. However, if the Final Bonds or the full amount of the escrowed cash have been provided, neither Orinoco nor the Clarkes would be liable to pay us for any such deficiency. Our financial condition and results of operations may be negatively affected if Orinoco is unable to cover any such deficiency or if we become liable for a significant portion of the decommissioning liabilities.

     In early 2018, we also closed the sale of our Offshore Division to Epic Companies, LLC (“Epic Companies,” formerly known as Epic Offshore Specialty, LLC). Part of the consideration we received was a promissory note of Epic Companies in the original principal amount of $7.5 million (the “Epic Promissory Note”). At the end of August 2019, Epic Companies filed for bankruptcy and we recorded a reserve of $7.5 million for the full amount of the promissory note, including accrued interest, and certain other receivables in the amount of $1.5 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Epic Promissory Note became due on December 31, 2019 and neither Epic nor the Clarkes made payment. TETRA filed a lawsuit against the Clarkes on January 15, 2020 for breach of the promissory note guaranty agreement. In September 2020, the court granted TETRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered Final Judgment in our favor, dismissing counterclaims by the Clarkes and awarded TETRA $7.9 million in damages. The Clarkes have filed an appeal which we will defend. We cannot provide any assurance the Clarkes will pay the judgment or that they will not file for bankruptcy protection. If the Clarkes do file for bankruptcy protection, we likely would be unable to collect all, or even a significant portion of, the judgment owed to us.