Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases. The Company has obligations under noncancelable operating leases, primarily for office space and equipment used in drilling and services activities. Total rental expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was approximately $1.7 million, $3.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively.

Future minimum payments under noncancelable operating leases (with initial lease terms exceeding one year) as of December 31, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):



Years ending December 31
2015	$	1,087
2016	982
2017	759
2018	572
2019	—
Thereafter	—
	$	3,400

Rig Commitments. The Company has contracts with third-party drilling rig operators for the use of their rigs at specified day or footage rates. These commitments are not recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. Minimum future commitments as of December 31, 2014 were $30.0 million for 2015 and $1.7 million for 2016.

Oil and Natural Gas Transportation and Throughput Agreements. The Company has subscribed firm gas transportation service under a transportation service agreement on the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, the term of which continues until July 2019. This commitment is not recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company is obligated to pay a demand charge and in exchange, obtains the right to flow natural gas production through this pipeline to more competitive marketing areas. The Company also has oil and natural gas throughput agreements in place, which require fixed fees based on minimum volume requirements for the right to flow oil and natural gas through certain pipelines. The amounts of the required payments related to the transportation and throughput agreements as of December 31, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):



Years ending December 31
2015	$	12,467
2016	12,498
2017	12,467
2018	12,899
2019	8,156
Thereafter	12,672
	$	71,159

Natural Gas Gathering Agreement. The Company has a gas gathering agreement with PGC related to its properties located in the Piñon Field in west Texas. Under the gas gathering agreement, the Company has dedicated its west Texas acreage for priority gathering services through June 30, 2029 and will pay a fee for such services. Pursuant to the gas gathering agreement, the base fee can be reduced if certain criteria are met. The table below presents the base fee contractual obligations under this agreement as of December 31, 2014 (in thousands).



Years ending December 31
2015	$	42,334
2016	42,272
2017	41,991
2018	41,825
2019	41,703
Thereafter	82,594
	$	292,719

Development Agreements with Royalty Trusts. The Company’s development agreement with the Mississippian Trust II obligates the Company to drill, or cause to be drilled, a specified number of wells within an area of mutual interest by December 31, 2016. The estimated cost to fulfill the drilling obligation remaining at December 31, 2014 totaled approximately $8.8 million. The Company fulfilled its drilling obligation to the Mississippian Trust I during 2013 and fulfilled its drilling obligation to the Permian Trust in 2014.

Treating Agreement. In conjunction with the Century Plant construction agreement, the Company entered into a 30-year treating agreement with Occidental for the removal of CO₂ from natural gas volumes delivered by the Company. Under the agreement, the Company is required to deliver a total of approximately 3,200 Bcf of CO₂ during the agreement period. The Company is obligated to pay Occidental $0.25 per Mcf to the extent minimum annual CO₂ volume requirements are not met. Through December 31, 2014, the Company had delivered to Occidental 54.7 Bcf of CO_2, which is 300.1 Bcf less than the cumulative minimum annual CO₂ volume requirements for the same period and had accrued associated annual shortfall penalties of approximately $75.0 million. Based on current projected natural gas production levels, the Company expects to accrue between approximately $31.0 million and $38.0 million during the year ending December 31, 2015 for amounts related to the Company’s anticipated shortfall in meeting its 2015 annual delivery obligations. If such under delivered volumes are not made up with commensurate over deliveries in the future, the Company will be obligated to pay Occidental $0.70 per Mcf (approximately $210.1 million total) in 2041, which amount has not been accrued as the Company does not currently believe such payment is probable.

If CO₂ volumes delivered to Occidental do not materially increase from current levels, the Company will have the right, beginning in 2020, to reduce future minimum annual CO₂ volume requirements under the agreement by paying Occidental an amount equal to the present value of $0.70 multiplied by such reduced CO₂ volume requirements as designated by the Company. As of December 31, 2014, if the Company were to cease delivering natural gas for processing and made no future CO₂ deliveries from such date until 2020, the Company would be required to pay annual delivery shortfall penalties, in the aggregate, of approximately $292.6 million for the contract years 2012 through 2019, which includes $75.0 million for penalties incurred through December 31, 2014. Further, by paying approximately $291.4 million in 2020, which includes the present value of $0.70 multiplied by delivery shortfalls incurred through such date, the Company could adjust the future CO₂ volume requirements to zero. This amount will continue to decrease as future deliveries of CO₂ are made. The Company also may terminate the treating agreement at any time, which would require a termination payment by the Company to Occidental of an amount equal to (a) the present value of $0.70 multiplied by the remaining CO₂ volumes required to be delivered under the agreement, plus (b) Occidental’s current net book value of the Century Plant.

The Company has first priority on daily available processing capacity for properly nominated and delivered volumes; however, based on cumulative delivered volumes as of the balance sheet date, if the Company makes no further deliveries from that date until 2025, beginning in 2025 the Century Plant, even if fully utilized, would not have adequate capacity to allow the Company to deliver CO₂ volumes attributable to previously incurred delivery shortfalls at that time.

Guarantees of Plugging and Abandonment Obligations. Under the equity purchase agreement associated with the sale of the Gulf Properties, the Company guaranteed on behalf of Fieldwood certain plugging and abandonment obligations associated with the Gulf Properties for a period of up to one year from the date of closing. The Company paid no amounts under this guarantee, which, as of February 25, 2015, it was permitted to terminate under the terms of the agreement with Fieldwood. See Note 3 for additional information regarding the guarantees.

Risks and Uncertainties. The Company’s revenue, profitability and future growth are substantially dependent upon the prevailing and future prices for oil and natural gas, each of which depends on numerous factors beyond the Company’s control such as overall oil and natural gas production and inventories in relevant markets, economic conditions, the global political environment, regulatory developments and competition from other energy sources. Oil and natural gas prices historically have been volatile, and may be subject to significant fluctuations in the future. The Company enters into derivative arrangements in order to mitigate a portion of the effect of this price volatility on the Company’s cash flows. See Note 13 for the Company’s open oil and natural gas commodity derivative contracts.

Production targets contained in certain gathering and treating agreements require the Company to incur capital expenditures or make associated shortfall payments, as discussed above. The Company depends on cash flows from operating activities and, as necessary, borrowings under its senior credit facility to fund its capital expenditures. Additionally, the Company may use proceeds from the issuance of equity and debt securities in the capital markets and from the sales or other monetizations of assets to fund its capital expenditures. Based on current cash balances, cash flows from operating activities and availability under the senior credit facility, the Company expects to be able to fund its planned capital expenditures budget, debt service requirements and working capital needs for 2015; however, if the current depressed oil or natural gas prices persist for a prolonged period or further decline, they would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows and quantities of oil, natural gas and NGL reserves that may be economically produced, which would adversely impact the Company’s ability to comply with the financial covenants under its senior credit facility. See Note 12 for discussion of the financial covenants in the senior credit facility.

Litigation and Claims. On April 5, 2011, Wesley West Minerals, Ltd. and Longfellow Ranch Partners, LP filed suit against the Company and SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (collectively, the “SandRidge Entities”) in the 83rd District Court of Pecos County, Texas. The plaintiffs, who have leased mineral rights to the SandRidge Entities in Pecos County, allege that the SandRidge Entities have not properly paid royalties on all volumes of natural gas and CO₂ produced from the acreage leased from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also allege that the SandRidge Entities have inappropriately failed to pay royalties on CO₂ produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from the treatment of natural gas at the Century Plant. The plaintiffs seek approximately $45.5 million in actual damages for the period of time between January 2004 and December 2011, punitive damages and a declaration that the SandRidge Entities must pay royalties on CO₂ produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from treatment of natural gas at the Century Plant. The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas (“GLO”) is named as an additional defendant in the lawsuit as some of the affected oil and natural gas leases described in the plaintiffs' allegations cover mineral classified lands in which the GLO is entitled to one-half of the royalties attributable to such leases. The GLO has filed a cross-claim against the SandRidge Entities asserting the same claims as the plaintiffs with respect to the leases covering mineral classified lands and seeking approximately $13.0 million in actual damages, inclusive of penalties and interest. On February 5, 2013, the Company received a favorable summary judgment ruling that effectively removes a majority of the plaintiffs' and GLO's claims. On April 29, 2013, the court entered an order allowing for an interlocutory appeal of its summary judgment ruling.

The plaintiffs appealed the rulings to the Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso. On November 19, 2014, that Court issued its opinion, which affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment rulings in part, but reversing them in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment rulings in the SandRidge Entities’ favor against the GLO. The Court also affirmed the summary judgment rulings in the SandRidge Entities’ favor against Wesley West Minerals, Ltd., on the largest oil and gas lease involved in the case, which accounted for much of the total damages the plaintiffs are claiming. The Court reversed certain rulings on other leases, thus deciding those matters for the plaintiffs. It is anticipated that the plaintiffs will seek rehearing by the Court of Appeals and possibly petition the Supreme Court of Texas for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining issues in the trial court, as well as future appellate proceedings. At the time of the ruling on summary judgment, the lawsuit was still in the discovery stage and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with the remaining causes of action, if any, cannot be made until all of the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to such claims and the SandRidge Entities' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

On August 4, 2011, Patriot Exploration, LLC, Jonathan Feldman, Redwing Drilling Partners, Mapleleaf Drilling Partners, Avalanche Drilling Partners, Penguin Drilling Partners and Gramax Insurance Company Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Company, SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (“SandRidge E&P”) and certain current and former directors and senior executive officers of the Company (collectively, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same allegations as those contained in the original complaint. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements to U.S. Drilling Capital Management LLC and to the plaintiffs prior to the entry into a participation agreement among Patriot Exploration, LLC, U.S. Drilling Capital Management LLC and SandRidge E&P, which provided for the investment by the plaintiffs in certain of SandRidge E&P's oil and natural gas properties. To date, the plaintiffs have invested approximately $16.0 million under the participation agreement. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and rescission of the participation agreement. On November 28, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 29, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously and believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

Between December 2012 and March 2013, seven putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal court in Oklahoma:


•	Arthur I. Levine v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on December 19, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma


•	Deborah Depuy v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma


•	Paul Elliot, on Behalf of the Paul Elliot IRA R/O, v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 29, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma


•	Dale Hefner v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 4, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma


•	Rocky Romano v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma


•	Joan Brothers v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on February 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma


•	Lisa Ezell, Jefferson L. Mangus, and Tyler D. Mangus v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on March 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma

Each lawsuit identified above was filed derivatively on behalf of the Company and names as defendants current and former directors of the Company. The Hefner lawsuit also names as defendants certain current and former directors and senior executive officers of the Company. All seven lawsuits assert overlapping claims - generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, mismanaged the Company, wasted corporate assets, and engaged in, facilitated or approved self-dealing transactions in breach of their fiduciary obligations. The Depuy lawsuit also alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company allegedly filing and distributing certain misleading proxy statements. The lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive relief related to the Company's corporate governance and unspecified damages.

On April 10, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma consolidated the Levine, Depuy, Elliot, Brothers, and Ezell actions (the “Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation”) under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,” appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint by May 1, 2013. On June 3, 2013, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 11, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 9, 2013, in which plaintiffs allege that: (i) the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Tom Ward, breached his fiduciary duties by usurping corporate opportunities, (ii) certain of the Company’s current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, (iii) Mr. Ward and certain of the Company’s current and former directors wasted corporate assets, (iv) certain entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward aided and abetted Mr. Ward’s breaches of fiduciary duties, (v) Mr. Ward and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward misappropriated the Company’s confidential and proprietary information, and (vi) entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward were unjustly enriched. On November 15, 2013, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 22, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Company and the director defendants. The court also granted in part and denied in part the respective motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the other defendants.

On September 26, 2014, the Board of Directors for the Company formed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”), composed of two independent and disinterested Company directors, and delegated absolute and final authority to the SLC to review and investigate the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation and in the Hefner action, and to determine whether and how those claims should be asserted on the Company’s behalf.

The Company and the individual defendants in the Hefner and Romano actions (the “State Shareholder Derivative Litigation”) moved to stay each of the actions in favor of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation, in order to avoid duplicative proceedings, and also requested, in the alternative, the dismissal of the State Shareholder Derivative Litigation.

On June 19, 2013, the court stayed the Hefner action until at least November 29, 2013. The court subsequently lifted its stay for purposes of hearing and deciding the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. On September 18, 2013, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The parties have agreed to stay this action pending the review and investigation by the SLC of the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation and in this action, and to determine whether and how those claims should be asserted on the Company’s behalf.

On May 8, 2013, the court stayed the Romano action pending further order of the court. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied by the court on February 7, 2014. On October 29, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s application to dismiss the action without prejudice.

Because the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation and the State Shareholder Derivative Litigation are in the early stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with each of them, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs’ claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to these actions.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation” (the “Securities Litigation”) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the “Mississippian Trusts”) in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the court.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs’ Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

On December 18, 2013, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an ongoing investigation of possible violations of antitrust laws in connection with the purchase or lease of land, oil or gas rights. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

On November 10, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D. Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1, 2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge’s business, operations and future prospects because such statements failed to properly account for the penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a result, SandRidge’s financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

On November 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii) SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014, were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge’s financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity.