If the vacation of the easement results in a permanent shutdown of the pipeline, MPLX would have to contribute its 9.19 percent pro rata share of the cost to redeem the bonds (including the one percent redemption premium required pursuant to the indenture governing the notes) and any accrued and unpaid interest.
If the vacatur of the easement results in a permanent shutdown of the pipeline, MPLX would have to contribute its 9.19 percent pro rata share of the cost to redeem the bonds (including the one percent redemption premium required pursuant to the indenture governing the notes) and any accrued and unpaid interest.
If the vacation of the easement results in a temporary shutdown of the pipeline, MPLX would have to contribute its 9.19 percent pro rata share of funds required to pay interest accruing on the notes and any portion of the principal that matures while the pipeline is shutdown.
If the vacatur of the easement results in a temporary shutdown of the pipeline, MPLX would have to contribute its 9.19 percent pro rata share of funds required to pay interest accruing on the notes and any portion of the principal that matures while the pipeline is shutdown.
Government Parties filed their answer and counterclaims to THPP’s suit claiming THPP is in continued trespass with respect to the pipeline and seek disgorgement of pipeline profits from June 1, 2013 to present, removal of the pipeline and remediation. On November 8, 2023, the Court granted THPP’s motion to sever and stay the U.S. Government Parties’ counterclaims.
Government Parties filed their answer and counterclaims to THPP’s suit claiming THPP is in continued trespass with respect to the pipeline and seek disgorgement of pipeline profits from June 1, 2013 to present, removal of the pipeline and remediation. On November 8, 2023, the District Court of North Dakota granted THPP’s motion to sever and stay the U.S.
As of December 31, 2023, our maximum potential undiscounted payments under the Contingent Equity Contribution Agreement were approximately $170 million.
As of December 31, 2024, our maximum potential undiscounted payments under the Contingent Equity Contribution Agreement were approximately $78 million.
Edwardsville Incident In March 2022, the State of Illinois brought an action in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois against Marathon Pipe Line LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting various violations and demanding a permanent injunction and civil penalties in connection with a release of crude oil on the Wood River to Patoka 22” line near Edwardsville, Illinois.
THPP continues not to operate the portion of the pipeline that crosses the property at issue. 41 T able of Contents Edwardsville Incident In March 2022, the State of Illinois brought an action in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois against Marathon Pipe Line LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting various violations and demanding a permanent injunction and civil penalties in connection with a release of crude oil on the Wood River to Patoka 22” line near Edwardsville, Illinois.
Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”), which granted permits and an easement for the Bakken Pipeline system, to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) relating to an easement under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The D.D.C. later vacated the easement.
In 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.D.C.”) ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”), which granted permits and an easement for the Bakken Pipeline system, to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) relating to an easement under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The D.D.C. later vacated the easement going forward.
The Army Corps has not selected a preferred alternative, but will make a decision in its final review, after considering input from the public and other agencies.
The Army Corps has not selected a preferred alternative, but will make a decision in its final review, after considering input from the public and other agencies. The pipeline remains operational while the Army Corps finalizes its decision which will follow the issuance of the final EIS.
The pipeline remains operational while the Army Corps finalizes its decision which is expected to be issued by the end of 2024. 38 Table of Contents MPLX has entered into a Contingent Equity Contribution Agreement whereby it, along with the other joint venture owners in the Bakken Pipeline system, has agreed to make equity contributions to the joint venture upon certain events occurring to allow the entities that own and operate the Bakken Pipeline system to satisfy their senior note payment obligations.
MPLX has entered into a Contingent Equity Contribution Agreement whereby it, along with the other joint venture owners in the Bakken Pipeline system, has agreed to make equity contributions to the joint venture upon certain events occurring to allow the entities that own and operate the Bakken Pipeline system to satisfy their senior note payment obligations.
We cannot currently estimate the amount of any civil penalty or the timing of the resolution of this matter but do not believe any civil penalty will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures Not applicable 39 Table of Contents PART II
We cannot currently estimate the amount of any civil penalty or the timing of the resolution of these matters, but do not believe any civil penalty will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
The names of the courts in which the proceedings are pending and the dates instituted are as follows: Plaintiff Date Instituted Name of Court(s) where pending County of San Mateo, California July 17, 2017 California Superior Court of San Mateo County County of Marin, California July 17, 2017 California Superior Court of Marin County City of Imperial Beach, California July 17, 2017 California Superior Court of Contra Costa County County of Santa Cruz, California December 20, 2017 California Superior Court of Santa Cruz County City of Santa Cruz, California December 20, 2017 California Superior Court of Santa Cruz County City of Richmond, California January 22, 2018 California Superior Court of Contra Costa County State of Rhode Island July 2, 2018 Superior Court of Providence County Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland July 20, 2018 Circuit Court of Baltimore County City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii March 9, 2020 Circuit Court of the First Circuit (State of Hawaii) City of Charleston, South Carolina September 9, 2020 Court of Common Pleas of the 9th Circuit; US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit State of Delaware September 10, 2020 Superior Court of Hudson County County of Maui, Hawaii October 12, 2020 Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (State of Hawaii) City of Annapolis, Maryland February 22, 2021 Maryland Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Anne Arundel County, Maryland April 26, 2021 Maryland Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; U.S.
The names of the courts in which the proceedings are pending and the dates instituted are as follows: Plaintiff Date Instituted Name of Court(s) where pending State of Rhode Island July 2, 2018 Superior Court of Providence County Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland July 20, 2018 Circuit Court of Baltimore County; The Appellate Court of Maryland City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii March 9, 2020 Circuit Court of the First Circuit (State of Hawaii) City of Charleston, South Carolina September 9, 2020 Court of Common Pleas of the 9th Circuit; US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit State of Delaware September 10, 2020 Superior Court of Hudson County County of Maui, Hawaii October 12, 2020 Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (State of Hawaii) City of Annapolis, Maryland February 22, 2021 Maryland Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County Anne Arundel County, Maryland April 26, 2021 Maryland Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County County of Multnomah, Oregon June 22, 2023 Circuit Court for the State of Oregon Dakota Access Pipeline MPLX holds a 9.19 percent indirect interest in a joint venture (“Dakota Access”) which owns and operates the Bakken Pipeline system.
Although each suit is separate and unique, the lawsuits generally allege defendants made knowing misrepresentations about knowingly concealing, or failing to warn of the impacts of their petroleum products, which led to increased demand and worsened climate change. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories, as well as breaches of consumer protection and unfair trade statutes.
Although each suit is separate and unique, the lawsuits generally allege defendants made knowing misrepresentations about knowingly concealing, or failing to warn of the impacts of their petroleum products, which led to 40 T able of Contents increased demand and worsened climate change.
The case will proceed on the merits of THPP’s challenge to the March 2021 order purporting to vacate all previous orders related to THPP’s alleged trespass. THPP continues not to operate the portion of the pipeline that crosses the property at issue.
Government Parties’ counterclaims. The case will proceed on the merits of THPP’s challenge to the March 2021 order purporting to vacate all previous orders related to THPP’s alleged trespass.