COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	(15) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation James A. Drummond and Chris Parrish v. Range Resources-Midcontinent, LLC et al.; pending in the District Court of Grady County, State of Oklahoma; Case No. CJ-2010-510 Two individuals (one of whom is now deceased), only one of which was a current royalty owner, filed suit against Range Resources Corporation and two of our subsidiaries, including the proper defendant Range Resources-Midcontinent, LLC, in the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. This suit is similar to a number of cases filed in Oklahoma asserting claims that royalty owners are entitled to payment of royalties on several different categories of alleged “deductions” applied by third parties who transport and process natural gas production. The alleged deductions include fuel used by the third party in the transportation and processing of gas, condensate removed by the third party after the point of sale, the contractually agreed natural gas liquids recovery percentages, the percentage of proceeds contracts’ contractually agreed pricing percentages and other similar alleged “deductions.” In addition to the claims made with respect to the alleged categories of deductions, the Plaintiffs in this litigation have alleged fraud and the existence of a fiduciary duty to the royalty owners to attempt to support an argument that no statute of limitations applies, and the Plaintiffs also claim that interest accrues on the alleged damages at 12% compounded annually. Thus while we cannot reasonably estimate our potential exposure at this time, the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs have been estimated by the Plaintiffs’ counsel to be in excess of $140 million. We believe Oklahoma is a “first marketable product” rule state and the current case law in Oklahoma (principally Mittelstaedt v. Santa Fe) allows operators to deduct value enhancing costs for treating, compression and other post-production expenses incurred to increase the value of a marketable product; however, whether and when gas is a marketable product and the extent to which the deductions are permitted may be fact questions under Oklahoma law. Further, we do not typically transport and process the gas production from wells we operate in Oklahoma but instead sell the gas production to unaffiliated third parties which, in many cases, do transport and process the gas. Range maintains that the alleged “deductions” made the subject of the Plaintiffs’ claims are not deductions at all but the negotiated terms of the contracts with the third parties who buy, transport and process the gas under terms that allow Range and its royalty owners to share in the enhanced downstream value that establishes the purchase price for the production sold by us, and on which we have paid royalty. Range further believes that its production is marketable under Oklahoma law when sold to such unaffiliated third parties. The terms with respect to payment of royalties vary based on the terms of the various oil and gas leases owned by Range for its Oklahoma wells and wells it has owned and operated in Oklahoma in the past, and our subsidiary believes that it has substantially complied with its royalty payment obligations under its leases and we therefore intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As previously disclosed, on February 19, 2013, the District Court entered an order certifying a class of royalty owners as requested by the Plaintiffs. We have appealed the class certification order. In addition, we have received a revised claim of damages by the Plaintiffs which has increased the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs to $160.0 million. We have evaluated the possible financial impact of this litigation, and while we believe we have strong defenses to the claims made in this lawsuit, given our evaluation of the law in Oklahoma, the outcomes in other similar litigation and our assessment of the current status of the litigation, the three months ended March 31, 2013 includes an accrual of $35.0 million which, at this time, we believe is appropriate given the information at this time. We may accrue additional amounts in the future or otherwise adjust this accrual depending upon future developments in the course of this litigation. We are the subject of, or party to, a number of other pending or threatened legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. While many of these matters involve inherent uncertainty, we believe that the amount of the liability, if any, ultimately incurred with respect to proceedings or claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position as a whole or on our liquidity, capital resources or future annual results of operations. We will continue to evaluate our litigation quarterly and will establish and adjust any litigation reserves as appropriate to reflect our assessment of the then current status of litigation. Transportation and Gathering Contracts and Hydraulic Fracturing Services In first quarter 2013, we recognized rate adjustments on certain existing transportation and gathering contracts which increased our transportation and gathering commitments approximately $63.0 million over the next 10 years. We also extended our commitments for hydraulic fracturing services by $24.0 million in 2014.

(15) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

James A. Drummond and Chris Parrish v. Range Resources-Midcontinent, LLC et al.; pending in the District Court of Grady County, State of Oklahoma; Case No. CJ-2010-510

Two individuals (one of whom is now deceased), only one of which was a current royalty owner, filed suit against Range Resources Corporation and two of our subsidiaries, including the proper defendant Range Resources-Midcontinent, LLC, in the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. This suit is similar to a number of cases filed in Oklahoma asserting claims that royalty owners are entitled to payment of royalties on several different categories of alleged “deductions” applied by third parties who transport and process natural gas production. The alleged deductions include fuel used by the third party in the transportation and processing of gas, condensate removed by the third party after the point of sale, the contractually agreed natural gas liquids recovery percentages, the percentage of proceeds contracts’ contractually agreed pricing percentages and other similar alleged “deductions.” In addition to the claims made with respect to the alleged categories of deductions, the Plaintiffs in this litigation have alleged fraud and the existence of a fiduciary duty to the royalty owners to attempt to support an argument that no statute of limitations applies, and the Plaintiffs also claim that interest accrues on the alleged damages at 12% compounded annually. Thus while we cannot reasonably estimate our potential exposure at this time, the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs have been estimated by the Plaintiffs’ counsel to be in excess of $140 million. We believe Oklahoma is a “first marketable product” rule state and the current case law in Oklahoma (principally Mittelstaedt v. Santa Fe) allows operators to deduct value enhancing costs for treating, compression and other post-production expenses incurred to increase the value of a marketable product; however, whether and when gas is a marketable product and the extent to which the deductions are permitted may be fact questions under Oklahoma law. Further, we do not typically transport and process the gas production from wells we operate in Oklahoma but instead sell the gas production to unaffiliated third parties which, in many cases, do transport and process the gas. Range maintains that the alleged “deductions” made the subject of the Plaintiffs’ claims are not deductions at all but the negotiated terms of the contracts with the third parties who buy, transport and process the gas under terms that allow Range and its royalty owners to share in the enhanced downstream value that establishes the purchase price for the production sold by us, and on which we have paid royalty. Range further believes that its production is marketable under Oklahoma law when sold to such unaffiliated third parties. The terms with respect to payment of royalties vary based on the terms of the various oil and gas leases owned by Range for its Oklahoma wells and wells it has owned and operated in Oklahoma in the past, and our subsidiary believes that it has substantially complied with its royalty payment obligations under its leases and we therefore intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As previously disclosed, on February 19, 2013, the District Court entered an order certifying a class of royalty owners as requested by the Plaintiffs. We have appealed the class certification order. In addition, we have received a revised claim of damages by the Plaintiffs which has increased the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs to $160.0 million. We have evaluated the possible financial impact of this litigation, and while we believe we have strong defenses to the claims made in this lawsuit, given our evaluation of the law in Oklahoma, the outcomes in other similar litigation and our assessment of the current status of the litigation, the three months ended March 31, 2013 includes an accrual of $35.0 million which, at this time, we believe is appropriate given the information at this time. We may accrue additional amounts in the future or otherwise adjust this accrual depending upon future developments in the course of this litigation.

We are the subject of, or party to, a number of other pending or threatened legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. While many of these matters involve inherent uncertainty, we believe that the amount of the liability, if any, ultimately incurred with respect to proceedings or claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position as a whole or on our liquidity, capital resources or future annual results of operations. We will continue to evaluate our litigation quarterly and will establish and adjust any litigation reserves as appropriate to reflect our assessment of the then current status of litigation.

Transportation and Gathering Contracts and Hydraulic Fracturing Services

In first quarter 2013, we recognized rate adjustments on certain existing transportation and gathering contracts which increased our transportation and gathering commitments approximately $63.0 million over the next 10 years. We also extended our commitments for hydraulic fracturing services by $24.0 million in 2014.