COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT 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 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 $390,096.

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

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 since many of the pending claims are asserted against dozens of defendants in any given action, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the pending 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 nearly 20 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 Sheets. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

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 putative class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas ownership was declared to be in conflict with rights of others even where the Virginia Supreme Court and General Assembly have purportedly decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the gas estate; that 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, that 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. In ruling on our Motion to Dismiss, the District Judge decided that the deemed lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional, as is the 1/8 royalty. 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. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order overruling CNX Gas Company’s Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified class definition. CONSOL Energy believes this case cannot properly proceed as a class action and filed a Petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the class certification Order. On November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit entered an Order deferring a ruling on the Petition but assigning the case to a merits panel. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held before a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit on May 13, 2014. Plaintiffs filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of ownership of the gas royalty escrow accounts and seeking an accounting. The Fourth Circuit denied a Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings while it considers the class certification issues, and the District Judge heard argument on the summary judgment motions on January 6, 2014, but has not ruled on the Motions. 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 is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Addison Litigation: A putative 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 plaintiffs own the gas and are 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 District Judge granted, in part, CNX Gas Company’s Motion to Dismiss. 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. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order overruling CNX Gas Company’s Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified class definition. CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly proceed as a class action and filed a Petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the class certification Order. On November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit entered an Order deferring a ruling on the Petition but assigning the case to a merits panel. The appeal was fully briefed, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on May 13, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of ownership of the gas royalty escrow accounts and seeking an accounting. The Fourth Circuit denied a Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings while it considers the class certification issues, and the District Judge heard argument on the summary judgment motions on January 6, 2014, but has not ruled on the Motions. 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 Sheets.

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 January 30, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed on behalf of four individuals against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), Island Creek Coal Company (ICCC), CNX Gas Company, as well as CONSOL Energy itself in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief in connection with the deposit of water from mining activities at the Buchanan Mine into nearby void spaces at some of the mines of ICCC, voids ostensibly underlying their property. The suit alleges damage to coal and coalbed methane and seeks recovery in tort, contract and assumpsit (quasi-contract). The suit seeks damages of approximately $50,000 plus punitive damages. The defendants have asserted Virginia's Mine Void Statute as a defense to plaintiffs’ claims and the plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of that statute. On March 18, 2014, the District Court concluded, in ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, it could not resolve either the constitutionality or the applicability of the Mine Void Statute on the current record. Discovery is ongoing. CONSOL Energy intends to vigorously defend the suit.

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 suit further sought a determination that the Pittsburgh 8 coal seam does not include the “roof/rider” coal. The court held a bench trial on the “roof/rider” coal issue in November 2011 and ruled in favor of CNX Gas Company and CONSOL Energy. On March 3, 2014, the Company won summary judgment on Counts 1 through 10 of the Amended Complaint, each relating to the alleged trespass of horizontal CBM wells into strata other than the Pittsburgh 8 Seam. The Court rejected each of those claims, essentially holding that if CNX Gas Company went out of the coal seam, it had no intention to do so and, in any event, the plaintiff could not prove any damages as a result. The last remaining Count, seeking to quiet title to approximately 40 acres of Pittsburgh Seam coal, was nonsuited by Plaintiffs, without prejudice, on March 26, 2014. On March 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed Notices of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court on all issues decided in CONSOL Energy’s favor.

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. Although initial mediation efforts were unsuccessful, another mediation session was held on May 27, 2014, and the parties continue to discuss settlement. 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.

At June 30, 2014, 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	$	151,311	$	117,542	$	33,769	$	—	$	—
Environmental	39,363		39,363		—		—		—
Other	131,802		58,979		72,823		—		—
Total Letters of Credit	322,476		215,884		106,592		—		—
Surety Bonds:
Employee-Related	204,893		194,893		10,000		—		—
Environmental	678,943		673,076		5,867		—		—
Other	26,887		26,840		46		—		1
Total Surety Bonds	910,723		894,809		15,913		—		1
Guarantees:
Coal	233,260		150,300		82,960		—		—
Other	67,717		35,611		10,470		14,462		7,174
Total Guarantees	300,977		185,911		93,430		14,462		7,174
Total Commitments	$	1,534,176	$	1,296,604	$	215,935	$	14,462	$	7,175

Included in the above table are commitments and guarantees entered into in conjunction with the sale of CCC and certain of its subsidiaries, which contain all five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia, and its river operations to a subsidiary of Murray Energy. As part of the sales agreement, CONSOL Energy has guaranteed certain equipment lease obligations and coal sales agreements that were assumed by Murray Energy. In the event that Murray Energy would default on the obligations defined in the agreements, CONSOL Energy would be required to perform under the guarantees. If CONSOL Energy would be required to perform, the stock purchase agreement provides various recourse actions. At June 30, 2014, the fair value of these guarantees was $3,000 and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The fair value of certain guarantees was determined using CONSOL Energy’s risk adjusted interest rate. Significant increases or decreases in the risk-adjusted interest rates may result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement. Coal sales agreement guarantees were valued based on an evaluation of coal market pricing compared to contracted sales price and includes an adjustment for nonperformance risk. No other amounts related to financial guarantees and letters of credit are recorded as liabilities in the financial statements. Significant judgment is required in determining the fair value of these guarantees. The guarantees of the leases and sales agreements are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

CONSOL Energy regularly evaluates the likelihood of default for all guarantees based on an expected loss analysis and records the fair value, if any, of its guarantees as an obligation in the consolidated financial statements.

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 Sheets. As of June 30, 2014, the purchase obligations for each of the next five years and beyond were as follows:



Obligations Due	Amount
Less than 1 year	$	172,295
1 - 3 years	381,321
3 - 5 years	355,532
More than 5 years	763,883
Total Purchase Obligations	$	1,673,031

Costs related to these purchase obligations include:



	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30,				June 30,
	2014		2013		2014		2013
Major Equipment Purchases	$	11,474	$	5,654	$	90,161	$	8,747
Firm Transportation and Processing Expense	25,424		21,689		49,363		42,821
Gas Drilling Obligations	30,226		25,904		52,450		54,768
Total Costs Related to Purchase Obligations	$	67,124	$	53,247	$	191,974	$	106,336