NOTE 24—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENGENT LIABILITIES:

CONSOL Energy and its subsidiaries are subject to various lawsuits and claims with respect to such matters as personal injury, wrongful death, damage to property, exposure to hazardous substances, governmental regulations including environmental remediation, employment and contract disputes and other claims and actions arising out of the normal course of business. We accrue the estimated loss for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. Our current estimated accruals related to these pending claims, individually and in the aggregate, are immaterial to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of CONSOL Energy. It is possible that the aggregate loss in the future with respect to these lawsuits and claims could ultimately be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of CONSOL Energy; however, such amount cannot be reasonably estimated. The amount claimed against CONSOL Energy is disclosed below when an amount is expressly stated in the lawsuit or claim, which is not often the case. The maximum aggregate amount claimed in those lawsuits and claims, regardless of probability, where a claim is expressly stated or can be estimated exceeds the aggregate amounts accrued for all lawsuits and claims by approximately $1,387,000.

The following lawsuits and claims include those for which a loss is probable and an accrual has been recognized.

American Electric Corp: On August 8, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, sent Consolidation Coal Company a General Notice and Offer to Negotiate regarding the Ellis Road/American Electric Corp. Superfund Site in Jacksonville, Florida. The General Notice was sent to approximately 180 former customers of American Electric Corp. CONSOL Energy has confirmed that it did business with American Electric Corp. in 1983‑84. The General Notice indicates that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants in the soils and sediments at and near the site require a removal action to address those areas. The Offer to Negotiate invites the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to enter into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent to provide for conducting the removal action under the EPA oversight and to reimburse the EPA for its past costs, in the amount of $384 and for its future costs. CONSOL Energy has responded to the EPA indicating its willingness to participate in such negotiations, and CONSOL Energy is participating in the formation of a group of potentially responsible parties to consider conducting the removal action. The actual scope of the work has yet to be determined, but the current estimate of the total costs of the removal action is in the range of $2,000 to $5,000, with CONSOL Energy's share of such costs at approximately 8%. CONSOL Energy has established an initial accrual based on its percentage share of the costs at the high end of the range. The liability is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Ward Transformer Superfund Site: CONSOL Energy was notified in November 2004 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it is a potentially responsible party (PRP) under the Superfund program established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Wake County, North Carolina. The EPA, CONSOL Energy and two other PRPs entered into an administrative Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent, requiring those PRPs to undertake and complete a PCB soil removal action, at and in the vicinity of the Ward Transformer property. In June 2008, while conducting the PCB soil excavation on the Ward property, it was determined that PCBs have migrated onto adjacent properties. The current estimated cost of remedial action for the area CONSOL Energy was originally named a PRP, including payment of the EPA's past and future cost, is approximately $65,000. The current estimated cost of the most likely remediation plan for the additional areas discovered is approximately $11,000. Also, in September 2008, the EPA notified CONSOL Energy and sixty other PRPs that there were additional areas of potential contamination allegedly related to the Ward Transformer Site. Current estimates of the cost or potential range of cost for this area are not yet available. CONSOL Energy recognized $3,502 and $3,422 of expense in Cost of Goods Sold and Other charges in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The amounts recognized in Cost of Goods Sold and Other Charges for the year ended December 31, 2011 were immaterial. CONSOL Energy also funded $250, $1,209 and $5,500 in the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, to an independent trust established for this remediation. As of December 31, 2011, CONSOL Energy and the other participating PRPs had asserted CERCLA cost recovery and contribution claims against approximately 225 nonparticipating PRPs to recover a share of the costs incurred and to be incurred to conduct the removal actions at the Ward Site. CONSOL Energy's portion of recoveries from settled claims is $4,491. Accordingly, the liability reflected in Other Accrued Liabilities was reduced by these settled claims. The remaining net liability at December 31, 2011 is $3,468.

Asbestos-Related Litigation: One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named as a defendant in approximately 7,500 asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

The following lawsuits and claims include those for which a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, and accordingly no accrual has been recognized.

Ryerson Dam Litigation: In 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (the Commonwealth) filed a six-count Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, claiming that the Company's underground longwall mining activities at its Bailey Mine caused cracks and seepage damage to the Ryerson Park Dam. The Commonwealth subsequently altered the dam, thereby eliminating the Ryerson Park Lake. The Commonwealth claimed that the Company is liable for dam reconstruction costs, lake restoration costs and natural resource damages totaling $58,000. On February 16, 2010, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued its interim report, concluding that the alleged damage was subsidence related. The DEP estimated the cost of repair to be approximately $20,000. The Company has appealed the DEP's findings to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (PEHB), which will consider the case de novo, meaning without regard to the DEP's decision, as to any finding of causation of damage and/or the amount of damages. Either party may appeal the decision of the PEHB to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, and then, as may be allowed, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A hearing on the merits of the case will not occur until sometime in the spring or summer of 2013. As to the underlying claim, CONSOL Energy believes it is not responsible for the damage to the dam and that numerous grounds exist upon which to attack the propriety of the claims. For that reason, we have not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if CONSOL Energy is ultimately found to be liable for damages to the dam, we believe the range of loss would be between $9,000 and $30,000.

South Carolina Gas & Electric Company Arbitration: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), a utility, has demanded arbitration, seeking $36,000 in damages against CONSOL of Kentucky and CONSOL Energy Sales Company, both wholly owned subsidiaries of CONSOL Energy. SCE&G claims it suffered damages in obtaining cover coal to replace coal which was not delivered in 2008 under a coal sales agreement. CONSOL Energy counterclaimed against SCE&G for $9,400 for terminating coal shipments under the sales agreement which SCE&G had agreed could be made up in 2009. A hearing on the claims is scheduled for April 30, 2012. The named CONSOL Energy defendants deny all liability and intend to vigorously defend the action filed against them. For that reason, we have not accrued a liability for this claim. If the named CONSOL Energy defendants prevail, the range of recovery would be between $5,100 and $6,800. If liability is ultimately imposed on the named CONSOL Energy defendants, we believe the range of loss would be between $16,000 and $27,000.

CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation: CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25 per share. The two cases filed in Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-VCL). All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders, essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and subsequent short-form merger was unfair. Among other things, the actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The lawsuit will likely go to trial, possibly in 2012. CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. For that reason, we have not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been exchanged by the parties, we believe the range of loss could be up to $221,000.

The following royalty and land right lawsuits and claims include those for which a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, and accordingly, no accrual has been recognized. These claims are influenced by many factors which prevent the estimation of a range of potential loss. These factors include, but are not limited to, generalized allegations of unspecified damages (such as improper deductions), discovery having not commenced or not having been completed, unavailability of expert reports on damages and non-monetary issues are being tried. For example, in instances where a gas lease termination is sought, damages would depend on speculation as to if and when the gas production would otherwise have occurred, how many wells would have been drilled on the lease premises, what their production would be, what the cost of production would be, and what the price of gas would be during the production period. An estimate is calculated, if applicable, when sufficient information becomes available.

C. L. Ritter: On March 1, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint instituted by C. L. Ritter Lumber Company Incorporated against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), Island Creek Coal Company, (ICCC), CNX Gas Company LLC, subsidiaries of CONSOL Energy Inc., as well as CONSOL Energy itself in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Virginia, seeking damages and injunctive relief in connection with the deposit of untreated water from mining activities at CCC's Buchanan Mine into nearby void spaces at one of the mines of ICCC. The suit alleges damages of between $34,000 and $430,000 for alleged damage to coal and coalbed methane, as well as breach of contract damages. We have removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, largely predicated on the statute of limitations bar. The trial judge ruled that the issue of the applicability of the statute of limitations bar can only be addressed after discovery. Three similar lawsuits were filed recently, one in the same court and two in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Virginia, by other plaintiffs that collectively allege damages of between $100,000 and $622,000. The Company has or intends to file motions to dismiss those suits as well. One of the three suits which claimed damages of $22,000 has been dismissed in federal court and has been appealed. CCC believes that it had, and continues to have, the right to store water in these void areas. CCC and the other named CONSOL Energy defendants deny all liability and intend to vigorously defend the action filed against them in connection with the removal and deposit of water from the Buchanan Mine. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Hale Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v. CNX Gas Company LLC et. al. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990 unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby controlled. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production began) be distributed to the class members. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8 royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to class members. The Magistrate Judge recommended against the dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to have any significance The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations in their entirety. The plaintiffs and CNX Gas have agreed to stay this litigation. CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Addison Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC. The case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and similarly situated CNX Gas lessors identified as conflicting claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas and Oil Board are the owners of the CBM and, accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment regarding ownership and compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the Ratliff decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM; negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary duties; and unjust enrichment. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations in their entirety. The plaintiffs and CNX Gas Company have agreed to stay this litigation. CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Hall Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010 styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court. The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall. The purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy. The complaint alleges more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors. The lawsuit alleges that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i) calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil production. The complaint also alleges that royalty statements were false and misleading. The complaint seeks damages, interest and an accounting on a well-by-well basis. CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Kennedy Litigation: The Company is a party to a case filed on March 26, 2008 captioned Earl Kennedy (and others) v. CNX Gas Company and CONSOL Energy in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges that CNX Gas Company and CONSOL Energy trespassed and converted gas and other minerals allegedly belonging to the plaintiffs in connection with wells drilled by CNX Gas Company. The complaint, as amended, seeks injunctive relief, including removing CNX Gas Company from the property, and compensatory damages of $20,000. The suit also sought to overturn existing law as to the ownership of coalbed methane in Pennsylvania, but that claim was dismissed by the court; the plaintiffs are seeking to appeal that dismissal. The suit also seeks a determination that the Pittsburgh 8 coal seam does not include the “roof/rider” coal. The court denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on that issue. The court held a bench trial on the “roof/rider” coal issue in November 2011 and briefing will take place before a decision is rendered. CNX Gas Company and CONSOL Energy believe this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend it. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Rowland Litigation: Rowland Land Company filed a complaint in May 2011 against CONSOL Energy, CNX Gas Company, Dominion Resources, and EQT Production Company (EQT) in Raleigh County Circuit Court, West Virginia. Rowland is the lessor on a 33,000 acre oil and gas lease in southern West Virginia. EQT was the original lessee, but they farmed out the development of the lease to Dominion, in exchange for an overriding royalty. Dominion sold the indirect subsidiary that held the lease to a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy on April 30, 2010. Subsequent to that acquisition, the subsidiary that held the lease was merged into CNX Gas Company as part of an internal reorganization. Rowland alleges that (i) Dominion's sale of the subsidiary to CONSOL Energy was a change in control that required its consent under the terms of the farmout agreement and lease, and (ii) the subsequent merger of the subsidiary into CNX Gas Company was an assignment that required its consent under the lease. Rowland alleges that the failure to obtain the required consent constitutes a breach of the lease and it seeks damages and a forfeiture of the lease. CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas Company have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing among other things, that Dominion's sale of the indirect subsidiary was not a change in control; that even if the sale constituted a change in control, the purchase agreement between Dominion and CONSOL Energy did not give effect to the transfer so the transfer never occurred; that the mergers did not require consent; and that Rowland did not provide timely notice of breach of the lease in accordance with its terms. Rowland is amending its complaint to include allegations that CONSOL Energy and Dominion Resources are liable for their subsidiaries' actions. We will file a motion to dismiss in response. CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

Majorsville Storage Field Declaratory Judgment: On March 3, 2011, an attorney sent a letter to CNX Gas Company regarding certain leases that CNX Gas Company obtained from Columbia Gas in Greene County, Pennsylvania involving the Majorsville Storage Field. The letter was written on behalf of three lessors alleging that the leases totaling 525 acres are invalid, and had expired by their terms. The plaintiffs' theory is that the rights of storage and production are severable under the leases. Ignoring the fact that the leases have been used for gas storage, they claim that since there has been no production or development of production, the right to produce gas expired at the end of the primary terms. On June 16, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, Pennsylvania, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking to have a court confirm the validity of the leases. We believe that we will prevail in this litigation based on the language of the leases and the current status of the law. Consequently, we have not recognized any liability related to these actions.

The following lawsuit and claims include those for which a loss is remote and accordingly, no accrual has been recognized, although if a non favorable verdict were received the impact could be material.

Comer Litigation: In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy, fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al. The plaintiffs, residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast, alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property. The District Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed. The Circuit Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before the entire court. A rehearing before the entire court was granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal, but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum. As a result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated. The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit Court to address the merits of their appeal. On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that request. Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being a finality, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making nearly identical allegations as in the original lawsuit. The defendants intend to seek an early dismissal of the case.

At December 31, 2011, CONSOL Energy has provided the following financial guarantees, unconditional purchase obligations and letters of credit to certain third parties, as described by major category in the following table. These amounts represent the maximum potential total of future payments that we could be required to make under these instruments. These amounts have not been reduced for potential recoveries under recourse or collateralization provisions. Generally, recoveries under reclamation bonds would be limited to the extent of the work performed at the time of the default. No amounts related to these financial guarantees and letters of credit are recorded as liabilities on the financial statements. CONSOL Energy management believes that these guarantees will expire without being funded, and therefore the commitments will not have a material adverse effect on financial condition.



	Amount of Commitment Expiration Per Period
	Total Amounts Committed		Less Than 1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		Beyond 5 Years
Letters of Credit:
Employee-Related	$	198,447	$	128,645	$	69,802	$	—	$	—
Environmental	56,994		23,076		33,918		—		—
Other	80,508		43,561		36,947		—		—
Total Letters of Credit	335,949		195,282		140,667		—		—
Surety Bonds:
Employee-Related	204,895		204,895		—		—		—
Environmental	442,698		439,435		3,263		—		—
Other	27,776		27,763		12		—		1
Total Surety Bonds	675,369		672,093		3,275		—		1
Guarantees:
Coal	79,800		30,752		26,548		18,500		4,000
Gas	100,223		54,613		14,988		—		30,622
Other	451,640		80,237		139,642		86,721		145,040
Total Guarantees	631,663		165,602		181,178		105,221		179,662
Total Commitments	$	1,642,981	$	1,032,977	$	325,120	$	105,221	$	179,663

Employee-related financial guarantees have primarily been provided to support the United Mine Workers’ of America’s 1992 Benefit Plan and various state workers’ compensation self-insurance programs. Environmental financial guarantees have primarily been provided to support various performance bonds related to reclamation and other environmental issues. Coal and Gas financial guarantees have primarily been provided to support various sales contracts. Other guarantees have been extended to support insurance policies, legal matters, full and timely payments of mining equipment leases, and various other items necessary in the normal course of business.

CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas enter into long-term unconditional purchase obligations to procure major equipment purchases, natural gas firm transportation, gas drilling services and other operating goods and services. These purchase obligations are not recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2011, the purchase obligations for each of the next five years and beyond were as follows:



Obligations Due	Amount
Less than 1 year	$	242,982
1 - 3 years	396,516
3 - 5 years	471,047
More than 5 years	1,649,325
Total Purchase Obligations	$	2,759,870

Costs related to these purchase obligations include:




	For The Years Ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009
Gas drilling obligations	$	108,167	$	28,641	$	—
Firm transportation expense	59,606		40,274		21,668
Major equipment purchases	43,698		56,723		89,261
Other	891		497		120
Total costs related to purchase obligations	$	212,362	$	126,135	$	111,049