COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

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 amounts 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 $792,000.

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 and 1984. The General Notice indicated 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. The Offer to Negotiate invited the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to enter into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (AOC) 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 responded to the EPA indicating its willingness to participate in such negotiations, and CONSOL Energy is participating in a group of potentially responsible parties to conduct the removal action. The AOC was signed on July 20, 2012, and as a result, the EPA granted the performing parties a $408 orphan share credit, which will offset the EPA's past costs. 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 $5,400, with CONSOL Energy's share of such costs at approximately 8%. In 2011, CONSOL Energy established an initial accrual based on its allocated share of the costs among the viable former customers of American Electric Corp. During the year ended December 31, 2012, CONSOL Energy funded $250 to an independent trust established for the remediation, which is 50% of CONSOL Energy's allocated share of the trust fund. The liability is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Ward Transformer Superfund Site: CONSOL Energy was notified in November 2004 by the 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 and in September 2008, the EPA notified CONSOL Energy and 60 other companies that they are PRPs for these additional areas. 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 $12,800. CONSOL Energy recognized $576 in expense in Cost of Goods Sold and Other charges in the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and recognized no expense in the nine months ended September 30, 2012. Also, CONSOL Energy has provided funding to an independent trust established for this remediation. CONSOL Energy funded $2,563 in the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and funded $400 in the nine months ended September 30, 2012. As of September 30, 2013, 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 $3,805. Accordingly, the liability reflected in Other Accrued Liabilities was reduced by these settled claims. The remaining net liability at September 30, 2013 is $1,769.

Asbestos-Related Litigation: One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, 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 was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Arbitration: In April, 2009, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), a public utility, filed an arbitration complaint, against CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. and CONSOL Energy Sales Company, both wholly owned subsidiaries of CONSOL Energy, seeking $36,000 in damages. SCE&G claimed it suffered those 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, alleging that SCE&G had agreed that shortfalls could be made up in 2009. A four day hearing on the claims commenced on April 30, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Arbitration Panel awarded SCE&G $9,735, plus interest at 8.75% from January 9, 2011, and attorney fees. The Award is against CONSOL of Kentucky only. On August 14, 2013, the Panel, over vigorous objection by CONSOL, awarded SCE&G $1,232 for attorneys’ fees and expenses. We had established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for this case, and have paid the final award in the nine months ended September 30, 2013. This matter is now concluded.

Hale Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v. CNX Gas Company, et. al. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas ownership is in conflict, the Virginia Supreme Court and General Assembly have decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the gas estate, the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990 unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM owners for gas produced under the forced-pooled orders, and CNX Gas Company relied upon control of only the coal estate in force pooling the CBM notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme Court. 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 lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting claimants, or deemed 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. 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. The Magistrate Judge recommended against the dismissal of certain other claims. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in their entirety. An amended complaint was filed, which added additional allegations that include gas hedging receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty payments, severance tax should not be allowed as a post-production deduction from royalties, and damages incurred because gas was produced prior to the entry of pooling orders. A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed and denied. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. CNX Gas Company filed its extensive Objections to the Report & Recommendation on July 3, 2013. The District Judge heard argument on the Objections on September 12, 2013, and on September 30, 2013, entered an Order overruling the Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified class definition. CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly proceed as a Rule 23 class action and intends to appeal the class certification Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Discovery is proceeding in this litigation. CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and intends to defend it vigorously. We have established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Addison Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia Supreme Court and General Assembly have decided that the plaintiff owns the gas and is entitled to royalties held in escrow by the Commonwealth of Virginia or CNX Gas Company. The lawsuit also alleges 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. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding ownership, an accounting and compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking) for improperly asserting that conflicting ownership exists, negligence (breach of duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary duties; and unjust enrichment. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in their entirety. An Amended Complaint was filed which added an additional allegation that gas hedging receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty payments. A motion to dismiss those claims was filed and was denied. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. CNX Gas Company filed its extensive Objections to the Report & Recommendation on July 3, 2013. The District Judge heard argument on the Objections on September 12, 2013, and on September 30, 2013, entered an Order overruling the Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified class definition. CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly proceed as a Rule 23 class action and intends to appeal the class certification Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Discovery is proceeding in this litigation. CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and intends to defend it vigorously. We have established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation: CONSOL Energy was named as a defendant in four putative class actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation 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 two cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-VCL). (A third case filed in Delaware was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in 2010.) All four 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. Following a mediation, the parties to the Delaware litigation have agreed in principle to a settlement and release of all of the claims of the plaintiff class (as defined in a January 20, 2011 order of certification) in exchange for defendants' agreement to establish a settlement fund in the amount of $42,730 for distribution to class members, of which CONSOL Energy is responsible for $19,200. On May 8, 2013, the parties executed and filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement. A Settlement Hearing was held by the Court on August 23, 2013, and the settlement was approved. There were no appeals, and the settlement was paid in October 2013.

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

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.

Ratliff Litigation: On March 22, 2012, the Company was served with four complaints filed on May 31, 2011 by four individuals against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), Island Creek Coal Company (ICCC), CNX Gas Company, subsidiaries of CONSOL Energy, as well as CONSOL Energy itself in the Circuit Court of Russell County, Virginia. The complaints seek damages and injunctive relief in connection with the deposit of water from mining activities at CCC's Buchanan Mine into nearby void spaces at some of the mines of ICCC. The suits allege damage to coal and coalbed methane and seek recovery in tort, contract and assumpsit (quasi-contract). The cases were removed to federal court, motions to dismiss were filed by CCC, and then were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. On January 30, 2013, the four plaintiffs filed a single consolidated complaint against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleging the same damage and theories of recovery for storage of water in the mine voids ostensibly underlying their property. The suit seeks damages ranging from $4,000 to $8,000 plus punitive damages. Service was effected on April 1, 2013 by waiver. A Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definitive Statement was filed by the defendants on May 31, 2013. Plaintiffs' Response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was filed on June 20, 2013, and the defendants on July 1, 2013, filed their Reply to the Response. Plaintiffs filed a Sur Reply brief on July 8, 2013, for the first time arguing the interpretation of the Virginia Mine Void Statute urged by defendants was unconstitutional. Based on Plaintiffs’ challenge, the Court on August 1, 2013, entered a Certificate pursuant to 28 USC Section 2304 notifying the Virginia Attorney General that the Mine Void Statute had been called into question and advising the Commonwealth of its right to intervene in the proceedings for the limited purpose of addressing the constitutionality of the statute. To date, the Virginia Attorney General has not responded. CONSOL Energy intends to vigorously defend the suit.

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. The case has been inactive since December 2011. 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 ruled for CNX Gas Company and CONSOL Energy, holding that the “roof/rider” coal is included in the Pittsburgh 8 coal seam. The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to appeal that decision. A trial on the issue of whether a drilling that deviates from the coal seam results in damage to the gas owner is anticipated for first quarter 2014. 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 Inc., 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 farmed out the development of the lease to Dominion Resources in exchange for an overriding royalty. Dominion Resources 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 Resources' 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/or (ii) the subsequent merger of the subsidiary into CNX Gas Company was an assignment that required its consent under the lease. Rowland has recently been permitted to file its Third Amended Complaint to include additional allegations that CONSOL Energy has slandered Rowland's title. A motion to dismiss will be filed. Initial mediation efforts have been unsuccessful. A Status Conference and hearing on pending discovery motions has been scheduled by the Court for November 6, 2013. 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. Discovery is proceeding in this litigation. 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. (Comer I). 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 final, 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 (Comer II). The trial court dismissed this case, and the dismissal was appealed. On May 14, 2013, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding res judicata arising from Comer I bars the plaintiffs' claims in Comer II. On June 5, 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued its mandate. August 12, 2013, was the deadline by which Plaintiffs had to file a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court of the United States. They did not do so. This matter is now concluded.

At September 30, 2013, 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	$	190,358	$	71,624	$	118,734	$	—	$	—
Environmental	56,294		54,566		1,728		—		—
Other	83,246		34,488		48,758		—		—
Total Letters of Credit	329,898		160,678		169,220		—		—
Surety Bonds:
Employee-Related	204,884		204,884		—		—		—
Environmental	537,167		495,017		42,150		—		—
Other	31,955		31,719		235		—		1
Total Surety Bonds	774,006		731,620		42,385		—		1
Total Commitments	$	1,103,904	$	892,298	$	211,605	$	—	$	1

Employee-related financial guarantees have primarily been provided to support the United Mine Workers’ of America’s 1992 Benefit Plan and various state and federal 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 also 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 September 30, 2013, the purchase obligations for each of the next five years and beyond were as follows:



Obligations Due	Amount
Less than 1 year	$	393,709
1 - 3 years	253,025
3 - 5 years	189,138
More than 5 years	419,240
Total Purchase Obligations	$	1,255,112

Costs related to these purchase obligations include:



	Three Months Ended				Nine Months Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2013		2012		2013		2012
Major equipment purchases	$	8,990	$	59,799	$	57,571	$	104,980
Firm transportation expense	29,654		18,844		89,196		49,711
Gas drilling obligations	26,296		27,100		81,419		85,192
Other	—		65		—		492
Total costs related to purchase obligations	$	64,940	$	105,808	$	228,186	$	240,375