MRO » Topics » Environmental Proceedings

This excerpt taken from the MRO 10-K filed Feb 27, 2009.

Environmental Proceedings

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px">U.S. EPA Litigation

In 2006, we and
other oil and gas companies joined the State of Wyoming in filing a petition for review against the U.S. EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. These actions seek a court order mandating the U.S. EPA to disapprove Montana’s
2006 amended water quality standards, on grounds that the standards lack sound scientific justification, they are arbitrary and capricious, and were adopted contrary to law. The water quality amendments at issue could require more stringent
discharge limits and have the potential to require certain Wyoming coal bed methane operations to perform more costly water treatment or inject produced water. Approval of these standards could delay or prevent obtaining permits needed to discharge
produced water to streams flowing from Wyoming into Montana. In February 2008, U.S. EPA approved Montana’s 2006 regulations, and we amended our petition for review. The court stayed this case while the U.S. EPA mediated the matter between
Montana, Wyoming and the Northern Cheyenne tribe. Mediation has been unsuccessful and the parties expect the Court to set a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions.

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">Montana Litigation

In June 2006, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Montana
State District Court against the Montana Board of Environmental Review (“MBER”) and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, seeking to set aside and declare invalid certain regulations of the MBER that single out the coal bed
natural gas industry and a few streams in eastern Montana for excessively severe and unjustified restrictions for surface water discharges of produced water from coal bed methane operations. None of the streams affected by the regulations suffers
impairment from coal bed natural gas discharges. The court, in deferring to the MBER’s discretion, upheld the MBER’s regulations. This decision was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court; this decision in the meanwhile does not impact our
operations due to pending litigation with U.S. EPA in Wyoming Federal District Court.

 


33







Table of Contents


Index to Financial Statements


This excerpt taken from the MRO 10-Q filed Aug 7, 2007.

Environmental Proceedings

In the Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”) v. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) case before the Federal District Court of Wyoming, the EDF alleged that in 2002, the BLM did not sufficiently evaluate the air impacts associated with coal bed natural gas production in the Powder River Basin, as well as other oil and gas operations in Wyoming. Marathon and other producers had intervened.  In June 2007, the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming dismissed the EDF case (without prejudice as to refiling).

This excerpt taken from the MRO 10-Q filed Nov 4, 2005.

Environmental Proceedings

 

The Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, has notified SSA of its intention to bring an enforcement action for alleged wastewater violations at three of its locations in Ohio.  SSA personnel have been in discussions with Ohio officials in an attempt to resolve this matter.

 

This excerpt taken from the MRO 10-Q filed May 9, 2005.

Environmental Proceedings

 

In January 2005, MAP received a Notice of Violation from the EPA alleging 33 violations of Clean Air Act fuels requirements.  These alleged violations largely resulted from MAP’s attest engagements submitted to the Agency under the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping programs.  The EPA proposed a penalty of $140,600.  We have been in discussions with the EPA and we hope to resolve this matter in 2005.

 

28



 

Environmental Proceedings

        The following is a summary of proceedings involving Marathon that were pending or contemplated as of December 31, 2004, under federal and state environmental laws. Except as described herein, it is not possible to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of these matters; however, management's belief set forth in the first paragraph under Item 3. "Legal Proceedings" above takes such matters into account.

        Claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and related state acts have been raised with respect to the cleanup of various waste disposal and other sites. CERCLA is intended to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. Liability is strict and can be joint and several. Because of various factors including the difficulty of identifying the responsible parties for any particular site, the complexity of determining the relative liability among them, the uncertainty as to the most desirable remediation techniques and the amount of damages and cleanup costs and the time period during which such costs may be incurred, Marathon is unable to reasonably estimate its ultimate cost of compliance with CERCLA.

        Projections, provided in the following paragraphs, of spending for and/or timing of completion of specific projects are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions including, but not limited to, the factors provided in the preceding paragraph. To the extent that these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, future spending for, or timing of completion of environmental projects may differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements.

        At December 31, 2004, Marathon had been identified as a PRP at a total of six CERCLA waste sites. Based on currently available information, which is in many cases preliminary and incomplete, Marathon believes that its liability for cleanup and remediation costs in connection with all but one of these sites will be under $1 million per site, and most will be under $100,000. Marathon believes that its liability for cleanup and remediation costs in connection with the one remaining site will be under $4 million.

        In addition, there is one site where Marathon has received information requests or other indications that it may be a PRP under CERCLA but where sufficient information is not presently available to confirm the existence of liability.

        There are also 131 additional sites, excluding retail marketing outlets, related to Marathon where remediation is being sought under other environmental statutes, both federal and state, or where private parties are seeking remediation through discussions or litigation. Of these sites, 14 were associated with properties conveyed to MAP by Ashland which has retained liability for all costs associated with remediation. Based on currently available information, which is in many cases preliminary and incomplete, Marathon believes that its liability for cleanup and remediation costs in connection with 25 of these sites will be under $100,000 per site, 53 sites have potential costs between $100,000 and $1 million per site, 19 sites may involve remediation costs between $1 million and $5 million per site and 8 sites have incurred remediation costs of more than $5 million per site. There are 11 sites with insufficient information to estimate future remediation costs.

        There is one site that involves a remediation program in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") at a closed and dismantled refinery site located near Muskegon, Michigan. During the next five years, Marathon anticipates spending less than $7 million at this site. Expenditures in 2004 were approximately $391,000, and expenditures in 2005 are expected to be $600,000 as technical evaluation continues, and could be as much as $3,900,000 if soil remediation is commenced in the second half of the year. Ongoing work at this site is subject to approval by the MDEQ, and a risk-based closure strategy is being developed for approval by the MDEQ.

        MAP has had a pending enforcement matter with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Attorney General's Office since 2002 concerning MAP's self-reporting of possible emission exceedences and permitting issues related to storage tanks at its Robinson, Illinois refinery. MAP has had periodic discussions with Illinois officials regarding this matter and more discussions may occur in 2005.

22



        In July, 2002, Marathon received a Notice of Enforcement from the State of Texas for alleged excess air emissions from its Yates Gas Plant and production operations on its Kloh lease. A settlement of this matter was finalized in 2004, with Marathon and its co-owners paying a civil penalty of $74,000 and the donation of land as a Supplemental Environmental Project in lieu of a further penalty of $74,000. Marathon is owner of a 38% interest in the facilities.

        In May, 2003, Marathon received a Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice or Potential Penalty from the State of Louisiana for alleged various air permit regulatory violations. This matter was settled for a civil penalty of $148,628 and awaits formal closure with the State.

        In August of 2004, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") submitted a draft consent order to MAP regarding MAP's handling of alleged hazardous waste generated from tank cleanings in the State of West Virginia. The proposed order seeks a civil penalty of $337,900. MAP has met with the WVDEP and discussions are ongoing in an attempt to resolve this matter.

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki