8. Commitments and Contingencies

Transportation Agreements

The Company has entered into certain natural gas and liquids transportation agreements with various pipelines with initial terms ranging from approximately four to 23 years. Under certain of these agreements, the Company is obligated to transport minimum daily quantities, or pay for any deficiencies at a specified rate. The Company is also obligated under certain of these arrangements to pay a demand charge for firm capacity rights on pipeline systems regardless of the amount of pipeline capacity utilized by the Company. In most cases, the Company's production commitment to these pipelines is expected to exceed minimum daily quantities provided in the agreements. If the Company does not utilize the capacity, it can release it to others, thus reducing its potential liability.

Future obligations under transportation agreements as of December 31, 2012 are as follows:

(In thousands)

2013	$	94,714
2014		98,145
2015		115,203
2016		126,973
2017		121,923
Thereafter		1,156,294

	$	1,713,252

Drilling Rig Commitments

During 2012, the Company did not enter into any new long-term drilling rig commitments. The existing commitments that commenced in the fourth quarter of 2011 relate to the Company's capital program in the Marcellus Shale and have original terms ranging from two to three years. The future minimum commitments under these agreements as of December 31, 2012 are $17.9 million in 2013 and $9.2 million in 2014.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain office space, warehouse facilities, vehicles, and machinery and equipment under cancelable and non-cancelable leases. Rent expense under these arrangements totaled $11.6 million, $13.6 million and $18.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable leases in effect at December 31, 2012 are as follows:

(In thousands)

2013	$	5,106
2014		4,652
2015		3,624
2016		730
2017		192
Thereafter		—

	$	14,304

Legal Matters

Preferential Purchase Right Litigation

In September 2005, the Company and Linn Energy, LLC were sued by Power Gas Marketing & Transmission, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages arising out of the Company's 2003 sale of oil and gas properties located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, to Linn Energy, LLC. The plaintiff alleges breach of a preferential purchase right regarding those properties contained in a 1969 joint operating agreement to which the plaintiff was a party. The Company initially obtained judgment as a matter of law as to all claims in a decision by the trial court dated February 2007. Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, where the ruling in favor of the Company was reversed and remanded to the trial court in March 2008. The Company appealed the Superior Court ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but in December 2008 that Court declined to review. Effective July 2008, Linn Energy, LLC sold the subject properties to XTO Energy, Inc., giving rise to a second lawsuit for unspecified damages filed in September 2009 by EXCO—North Coast Energy, Inc., as successor in interest to Power Gas Marketing & Transmission, Inc., against the Company, Linn Energy, LLC and XTO Energy, Inc. The second lawsuit has been consolidated into the first lawsuit. A bench trial was held in early June 2012 and closing arguments were held in January 2013, but there has not yet been a final ruling on the case.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims lack merit and does not consider a loss related to this matter to be probable; however, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, a loss is possible. In the event that the Company is found liable, the potential loss is currently estimated to be less than $15 million.

Other

The Company is also a defendant in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. All known liabilities are accrued based on management's best estimate of the potential loss. While the outcome and impact of these legal proceedings on the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingency Reserves

When deemed necessary, the Company establishes reserves for certain legal proceedings. The establishment of a reserve is based on an estimation process that includes the advice of legal counsel and subjective judgment of management. While management believes these reserves to be adequate, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur additional losses with respect to those matters in which reserves have been established. The Company believes that any such amount above the amounts accrued is not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Future changes in facts and circumstances could result in the actual liability exceeding the estimated ranges of loss and amounts accrued.

Environmental Matters

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

On December 15, 2010, the Company entered into a consent order and settlement agreement (CO&SA) with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP), addressing a number of environmental issues originally identified in 2008 and 2009, including alleged releases of drilling mud and other substances, alleged record keeping violations at various wells and alleged natural gas contamination of water supplies to 14 households in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. During 2010 and 2011, the Company paid a total of $1.3 million in settlement of fines and penalties sought or claimed by the PaDEP related to this matter. On January 11, 2011, certain of the affected households appealed the CO&SA to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (PEHB). On October 17, 2011, the Company requested PaDEP approval to resume hydraulic fracturing and new natural gas well drilling operations in the affected area, along with a request to cease temporary water deliveries to the affected households pursuant to prior consent orders with the PaDEP. The PaDEP concurred that temporary water deliveries to the property owners are no longer necessary. On November 18, 2011, certain of the affected households appealed this order to the PEHB, which appeal was later consolidated with the CO&SA appeal. All appellants have accepted their portion of the $2.2 million that was placed into escrow in 2011 for their benefit and on October 18, 2012 dismissed their appeal to the PEHB. Subsequent to the withdrawal of the appeals, the PEHB allowed three of the appellants to reinstate their appeal. A hearing related to the reinstated appeal is expected to occur in the first half 2013.

The Company is in continuing discussions with the PaDEP to address the results of the Company's natural gas well test data, water quality sampling and water well headspace screenings, which were required pursuant to the CO&SA. On August 21, 2012, the PaDEP notified the Company that it could commence completion operations on existing wells within the concerned area.