9.  Contingencies  

Supplemental Bonding Requirements by the BOEM.  The BOEM requires that lessees demonstrate financial strength and reliability according to its regulations or provide acceptable financial assurances to satisfy lease obligations, including decommissioning activities on the OCS.  In July 2016, the BOEM issued NTL #2016-N01 to clarify the procedures and guidelines that BOEM Regional Directors use to determine if and when additional financial assurances may be required for OCS leases, ROWs or RUEs.  This NTL became effective in September 2016 and supersedes and replaces NTL #2008-N07.

W&T and other offshore Gulf of Mexico producers may in the ordinary course receive future demands for financial assurances from the BOEM as the BOEM continues to reevaluate its requirements for financial assurances.  

Surety Bond Collateral.  The issuers of surety bonds in some cases have requested and received additional collateral related to surety bonds for plugging and abandonment activities.  We may be required to post collateral at any time pursuant to the terms of our agreement with various sureties under our existing bonds, if they so demand at their discretion.  We did not receive any collateral demands from surety bond providers during the six months ended June 30, 2017.

Apache Lawsuit.   On December 15, 2014, Apache filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that W&T breached the joint operating agreement related to, among other things, the abandonment of three deepwater wells in the Mississippi Canyon (“MC”) area of the Gulf of Mexico.  The dispute relates to Apache's use of drilling rigs instead of a previously contracted intervention vessel for the plugging and abandonment work.  We contended that the costs to use the drilling rigs were unnecessary and unreasonable, and that Apache chose to use the rigs without W&T's consent because they otherwise would have been idle at Apache's expense.  We believe the use of the rigs was in bad faith, as found by the jury, and that such conduct caused W&T not to comply with the applicable joint operating agreement, particularly since another vessel had been contracted by Apache for the abandonment a year in advance.  We had previously paid $24.9 million to Apache as an undisputed amount for the plug and abandonment work.

On October 28, 2016, the jury made the following findings:

A final trial court judgment was rendered from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 31, 2017 directing the Company to pay Apache $43.2 million, plus $6.3 million in prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs assessed in the judgment.  

We intend to appeal the trial court judgment in this lawsuit.  In June 2017, in order to stay execution of the judgment, and pending the disposition of post judgment motions, we deposited with the court $49.5 million in escrow.  This amount in escrow is recorded in Other assets (long-term) with a corresponding reduction to Cash and cash equivalents on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.  Although we are appealing the decision, based solely on the decision rendered, we have recorded $49.5 million in Other liabilities (long-term) and $43.2 million as capitalized ARO included in Oil and natural gas properties and other, net on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and have recognized $6.3 million of expense included in Other income/expense on the Condensed Statement of Operations.    

Notification by ONRR of Fine for Non-compliance.  In December 2013 and January 2014, we were notified by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) of an underpayment of royalties on certain federal offshore oil and gas leases that cumulatively approximated $30,000 over several years, which represents 0.0045% of royalty payments paid by us during the same period of the underpayment.  In March 2014, we received notice from the ONRR of a statutory fine of $2.3 million (subsequently reduced to approximately $1.1 million) relative to such underpayment.  We filed for a hearing on the matter and a decision was issued by an Administrative Law Judge in June 2017 cancelling the civil penalty in its entirety under the applicable provisions of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act.  

Appeal with ONRR.   In 2009, we recognized allowable reductions of cash payments for royalties owed to the ONRR for transportation of their deepwater production through our subsea pipeline systems.  In 2010, the ONRR audited our calculations and support related to this usage fee, and in 2010, we were notified that the ONRR had disallowed approximately $4.7 million of the reductions taken.  We recorded a reduction to other revenue in 2010 to reflect this disallowance; however, we disagree with the position taken by the ONRR.  We filed an appeal with the ONRR, which was denied in May 2014.  On June 17, 2014, we filed an appeal with the IBLA under the Department of the Interior.  On January 27, 2017, the IBLA affirmed the decision of the ONRR requiring W&T to pay approximately $4.7 million in additional royalties.  After discussing with counsel, we have decided to seek judicial review of the IBLA decision in federal court in New Orleans.

Royalties – “Unbundling” Initiative.  The ONRR has publicly announced an “unbundling” initiative to revise the methodology employed by producers in determining the appropriate allowances for transportation and processing costs that are permitted to be deducted in determining royalties under Federal oil and gas leases.  The ONRR’s initiative requires re-computing allowable transportation and processing costs using revised guidance from the ONRR going back 84 months for every gas processing plant that processed our gas.  In the second quarter of 2015, pursuant to the initiative, we received requests from the ONRR for additional data regarding our transportation and processing allowances on natural gas production related to a specific processing plant.  We also received a preliminary determination notice from the ONRR asserting that our allocation of certain processing costs and plant fuel use at another processing plant was not allowed as deductions in the determination of royalties owed under Federal oil and gas leases.  We have submitted revised calculations covering certain plants and time periods to the ONRR.  As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, we have not received a response from the ONRR related to our submissions.  These open ONRR unbundling reviews, and any further similar reviews, could ultimately result in an order for payment of additional royalties under our Federal oil and gas leases for current and prior periods.  For the six months ended June 30, 2017, we have made additional royalty payments of $1.1 million.  We are not able to determine the range of any additional royalties or, if and when assessed, whether such amounts would be material.

Notices of Proposed Civil Penalty Assessment.  As of June 30, 2017, we had five open civil penalties issued by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) arising from Incidents of Noncompliance (“INCs”), which have not been settled as of the filing date of this Form 10-Q.  The INC’s underlying the civil penalties relate to separate offshore locations with occurrence dates ranging from July 2012 to March 2016.  The proposed civil penalties for these INCs total $7.5 million and we are appealing these proposed assessments.  During the six months ended June 30, 2017, we made $0.1 million of payments related to civil penalties.  During the six months ended June 30, 2017, we increased the estimated liability by $1.8 million and have accrued approximately $3.3 million as of June 30, 2017, which is our best estimate of the final settlement once all appeals have been exhausted.  Our position is that the proposed civil penalties are excessive given the specific facts and circumstances related to these INCs.     

Iberville School Board Lawsuit.  In August 2013, a citation was issued on behalf of plaintiffs, the State of Louisiana and the Iberville Parish School Board, in their suit against us (among others) in the 18^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana.  This case involves claims by the Iberville Parish School Board that certain property in Louisiana had allegedly been contaminated or otherwise damaged by certain defendants’ oil and gas exploration and production activities.  The plaintiff’s claims include assessment costs, restoration costs, diminution of property value, punitive damages, and attorney fees and expenses, of which were not quantified in the claim.  All parties have reached a settlement in principle for this matter.  A motion has been filed with the court seeking approval of the settlement.  The effect of the settlement on the financial statements was immaterial from the previously recorded liability.  

Other Claims.  We are a party to various pending or threatened claims and complaints seeking damages or other remedies concerning our commercial operations and other matters in the ordinary course of our business.  In addition, claims or contingencies may arise related to matters occurring prior to our acquisition of properties or related to matters occurring subsequent to our sale of properties.  In certain cases, we have indemnified the sellers of properties we have acquired, and in other cases, we have indemnified the buyers of properties we have sold.  We are also subject to federal and state administrative proceedings conducted in the ordinary course of business including matters related to alleged royalty underpayments on certain federal-owned properties.  Although we can give no assurance about the outcome of pending legal and federal or state administrative proceedings and the effect such an outcome may have on us, we believe that any ultimate liability resulting from the outcome of such proceedings, to the extent not otherwise provided for or covered by insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.