Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Loss Contingency [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contractual Obligations, Commitments and Contingencies

In August 2013, we subleased a portion of our corporate offices. The sublease will reduce our future office space commitment by $2.2 million over the term of the lease.

In July 2013, in light of the Canadian Governor in Council's failure to approve NGTL's construction of the Komie North Project, NGTL terminated the Project and Expenditure Authorization (PEA), which authorized NGTL to construct the Komie North Project and the related meter station. The PEA necessitated the construction of a treatment facility and required financial guarantees to cover NGTL's costs for the Komie North Project. We recognized $12.8 million in related actual costs incurred by NGTL, which is reflected in other income (expense) in our consolidated financial statements. We paid NGTL in August 2013 after which the related letter of credit was terminated. With the termination of the PEA described above, our agreement to deliver gas to the Komie North Project has also terminated. We maintain our ability to sell gas at the Station 2 and AECO hubs, as our current production is served by existing treating facilities and pipelines.

In April 2013, we increased our outstanding letter of credit by C$13 million for the step-up of treating commitments in the Horn River Basin. In August 2013, we reduced our outstanding letters of credit by C$14 million upon a payment to NGTL related to the Komie North Project.

In December 2012, Vantage Fort Worth Energy LLC (“Plaintiff”) served a lawsuit against us and others in the 352nd Judicial District Court of Texas in Tarrant County asserting claims for trespass to try title, suit to quiet title, trespass and conversion in connection with 16 wells located on a 158.75 acre tract located in Tarrant County, Texas. On May 8, 2013, all parties to the suit entered into a settlement agreement, effective April 1, 2013, whereby we assigned to Plaintiff various property and equipment and Plaintiff agreed to non-suit all of the Defendants in the matter. The court entered its Order of Dismissal with prejudice on May 13, 2013. We recognized an expense of $0.4 million in connection with this settlement.

In July 2011, we received a subpoena duces tecum from the SEC requesting certain documents. The SEC has informed us that their investigation arises out of press releases in 2011 questioning the projected decline curves and economics of shale gas wells. In June 2012, we received an additional request from the SEC for certain information regarding our assessment for impairment of unevaluated properties and plans for development of unevaluated properties. We provided responsive information and in February 2013 we met with the SEC.

Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in our 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K contains a more complete description of our contractual obligations, commitments and contingencies for which there are no other significant updates during the quarter ended September 30, 2013.