NOTE J – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

our BKRF subsidiary and CTCI, entered into the CTCI EPC Agreement. CTCI Americas is a leading provider of reliable engineering, procurement and construction services, including for the refinery market. Under the CTCI EPC Agreement, CTCI has agreed to provide services to complete the engineering, procurement, construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning, start-up and testing of our renewable diesel production facility under construction in Bakersfield, California. The guaranteed maximum price under the CTCI EPC Agreement, comprising CTCI’s fees and costs, including direct costs, overhead fees and the contractor’s fee was

The obligations of CTCI have been guaranteed by CTCI Corporation, the Taiwanese parent company of CTCI. 

 

The following table summarizes the minimum required payments of the EPC deferred payments as of March 31, 2023 assuming substantial completion is achieved by October 2023:

 

 

In connection with the acquisition, BKRF OCB, LLC agreed to undertake certain clean-up activities at the refinery and provide a guarantee for liabilities arising from the clean-up. The Company has assumed significant environmental and clean-up liabilities associated with the purchase of the Bakersfield refinery.

 

The Company recognizes its asset retirement obligation and environmental remediation liabilities and has estimated such liabilities as of its acquisition date. It is the Company’s policy to accrue environmental and clean-up related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Environmental remediation liabilities represent the current estimated costs to investigate and remediate contamination at our properties. This estimate is based on internal and third-party assessments of the extent of the contamination, the selected remediation technology and review of applicable environmental regulations, typically considering estimated activities and costs for 20 years, and up to 30 years if a longer period is believed reasonably necessary. Accruals for estimated costs from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study and include, but are not limited to, costs to perform remedial actions and costs of machinery and equipment that are dedicated to the remedial actions and that do not have an alternative use. Such accruals are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. We discount environmental remediation liabilities to their present value if payments are fixed and determinable. However, as the timing and amount of these costs were undeterminable as of March 31, 2023, these costs have not been discounted. Expenditures for equipment necessary for environmental issues relating to ongoing operations are capitalized. Changes in laws and regulations and actual remediation expenses compared to historical experience could significantly impact our results of operations and financial position. We believe the estimates selected, in each instance, represent our best estimate of future outcomes, but the actual outcomes could differ from the estimates selected. At March 31, 2023, accrued environmental remediation liability costs totaled $20.2 million of which $2.3 million have been classified as current liabilities. At 31, 2022, accrued environmental liabilities totaled $20.4 million of which $4.4 million have been classified as current liabilities.

 

We recognize a right-of-use (“ROU”) asset and lease liability for each operating and finance lease with a contractual term greater than 12 months at the time of lease inception. We include ROU assets and lease liabilities for leases that exist within other contracts. Leases with an original term of 12 months or less are not recognized on the balance sheet, and the rent expense related to those short-term leases is recognized over the lease term. We do not account for lease and non-lease (e.g. common area maintenance) components of contracts separately for any underlying asset class.

 

We lease certain manufacturing equipment, warehouses, office space, and vehicles under finance and operating leases. Lease commencement occurs on the date we take possession or control of the property or equipment. Original terms for our real estate-related leases are generally between three and five years. Original terms for equipment-related leases, primarily manufacturing equipment and vehicles, are generally between one and ten years. Some of our leases also include rental escalation clauses. Renewal options are included in the determination of lease payments when management determines the options are reasonably certain of exercise, considering financial performance, strategic importance and/or invested capital.

 

If readily determinable, the rate implicit in the lease is used to discount lease payments to present value; however, substantially all of our leases do not provide a readily determinable implicit rate. When the implicit rate is not determinable, our estimated incremental borrowing rate is utilized, determined on a collateralized basis, to discount lease payments based on information available at lease commencement.

Total lease costs recorded include fixed operating lease costs and variable lease costs. Most of our real estate leases require payment of certain expenses, such as common area maintenance costs, of which the fixed portion is included in operating lease costs. We recognize operating lease costs on a straight-line basis over the lease term. In addition to the above costs, variable lease costs are recognized when probable and are not included in determining the present value of our lease liability.

 

The ROU asset is measured at the initial amount of the lease liability (calculated as the present value of lease payments over the term of the lease) adjusted for lease payments made at or before the lease commencement date and initial direct costs. For operating leases, ROU assets are reduced over the lease term by the recognized straight-line lease expense less the amount of accretion of the lease liability determined using the effective interest method. For finance leases, ROU assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of the useful life of the leased asset or the lease term. Interest expense on each finance lease liability is recognized utilizing the effective interest method. ROU assets are tested for impairment in the same manner as long-lived assets and we determined there have been no triggering events for impairment. Additionally, we monitor for events or changes in circumstances that may require a reassessment of one of our leases and determine if a remeasurement is required.

 

In September 2022, the Company reassessed the terms of the finance lease agreement for a building in Great Falls, Montana. The Company determined that it was no longer reasonably certain that the purchase option would be exercised within the term of the lease due to cash needs in other areas of the SusOils business. Therefore, the Company has changed the lease classification from a finance lease to an operating lease and reclassed and remeasured the building asset to a right-of-use asset and lease liability.

The table below presents the lease-related assets and liabilities recorded on the balance sheet at March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022:

 

 

The table below presents the components of lease costs for the three ended March 31, 2023 and 2022:

 

 

The table below presents the weighted average remaining lease terms and weighted average discount rates for the Company's leases as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022:

 

The table below presents the maturity of the lease liabilities as of March 31, 2023:

 

On February 28, 2023, we received notice from ExxonMobil, that effective as of July 1, 2023, ExxonMobil was irrevocably terminating the Offtake Agreement without any further action of ExxonMobil, upon failure of the Bakersfield Renewable Fuels Refinery to commence operations contemplated by the Offtake Agreement by June 30, 2023. The Company believes that ExxonMobil’s purported termination of the Offtake Agreement is ineffective, and the Company reserves and will enforce all its rights under the Offtake Agreement, including without limitation those rights that automatically extend the Start Date.

 

On March 1, 2023, we received notice that ExxonMobil, in its capacity as a holder of Series C Preferred stock, filed a complaint against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”) in relation to alleged wrongdoing by our management. On April 28, 2023, the Company and ExxonMobil jointly filed a stipulation in the Court pursuant to which the parties have agreed on the scope of a voluntary document production by the Company for purposes of resolving the books and records complaint under Section 220 (the “Stipulation to Resolve”).  Pursuant to the Stipulation to Resolve, the parties have agreed to hold the Company’s deadline to respond to ExxonMobil’s initial complaint in abeyance while the Company completes its voluntary document production for the agreed purpose of resolving the action.  The parties have agreed the Company shall begin producing documents on a rolling basis beginning no later than May 12, 2023 and the Company has begun such delivery.  It is possible that one or more additional stockholder suits could be filed pertaining to the subject matter of the Section 220 complaint. While the Company intends to comply with applicable law, it believes the allegations described in the complaint are without merit; moreover, the Stipulation to Resolve is not an admission of liability by the Company, and is subject and without prejudice to the Company’s express reservation of rights in all regards.

 

BKRF, formerly Alon Bakersfield Property, Inc., is one of the parties to an action pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In June 2019, the jury awarded the plaintiffs approximately $6.7 million against Alon Bakersfield Property, Inc. and Paramount Petroleum Corporation (a parent company of Alon Bakersfield Property, Inc. at the time of the award in 2019). Under the agreements pursuant to which we purchased BKRF, Alon Paramount agreed to assume and be liable for (and to indemnify, defend, and hold BKRF harmless from) this litigation. In addition, Paramount Petroleum Corporation has posted a bond to cover this judgment amount. All legal fees in this matter are being paid by Alon Paramount. As Paramount Petroleum Corporation and the Company are jointly and severally liable for the judgment, and Paramount Petroleum Corporation has agreed to absorb all of the liability and has posted a bond to cover the judgment amount, no loss has been accrued by the Company with respect to this matter.

In April 2023, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial judge erred in allowing the plaintiffs to seek retroactive trespass damages prior to the date the plaintiffs purchased the land at issue in 2014, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

 

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may face various claims brought by third parties, including former workers and employees, and the Company may, from time to time, make claims or take legal actions to assert the Company’s rights, including intellectual property rights, contractual disputes and other commercial disputes. Any of these claims could subject the Company to litigation. Management believes the outcomes of currently pending claims will not likely have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.