Contingencies

The Company is party to claims and lawsuits arising out of its business and that of its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company accrues a liability for those contingencies when the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and which are material, the Company discloses the nature of the contingency and, in some circumstances, an estimate of the possible loss. The Company had accrued liabilities of $32.1 million, $32.9 million and $29.5 million for contingencies, including litigation, production taxes, royalty claims and environmental matters, at June 30, 2014 and 2013, and December 31, 2013, respectively, which include amounts that may have been accrued for matters discussed in Litigation and Environmental matters within this note.

Litigation

Guarantee Obligation Under a Construction Contract Centennial guaranteed CEM's obligations under a construction contract with LPP for a 550-MW combined-cycle electric generating facility near Hobbs, New Mexico. Centennial Resources sold CEM in July 2007 to Bicent. In February 2009, Centennial received a Notice and Demand from LPP under the guarantee agreement alleging that CEM did not meet certain of its obligations under the construction contract and demanding that Centennial indemnify LPP against all losses, damages, claims, costs, charges and expenses arising from CEM's alleged failures. In December 2009, LPP submitted a demand for arbitration of its dispute with CEM to the American Arbitration Association seeking compensatory damages of $149.7 million. An arbitration award was issued January 13, 2012, awarding LPP $22.0 million. Centennial subsequently received a demand from LPP for payment of the arbitration award plus interest and attorneys' fees. An accrual related to the guarantee as a result of the arbitration award was recorded in discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statement of Income in the fourth quarter of 2011. CEM filed a petition with the New York Supreme Court to vacate the arbitration award in favor of LPP. The New York Supreme Court granted CEM's petition to vacate the arbitration award on November 20, 2012, and entered an order and judgment to that effect on June 5, 2013. LPP appealed the order and judgment and on February 20, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled the arbitration award was properly vacated. LPP filed a motion with the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal the decision of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. The motion was denied on June 10, 2014. Due to the vacation of the arbitration award, the accrual that was previously recorded in 2011 was reversed in the fourth quarter of 2012. The effect of this was recorded in discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statement of Income. For more information regarding discontinued operations, see Note 11.

Construction Materials Until the fall of 2011 when it discontinued active mining operations at the pit, JTL operated the Target Range Gravel Pit in Missoula County, Montana under a 1975 reclamation contract pursuant to the Montana Opencut Mining Act. In September 2009, the Montana DEQ sent a letter asserting JTL was in violation of the Montana Opencut Mining Act by conducting mining operations outside a permitted area. JTL filed a complaint in Montana First Judicial District Court in June 2010, seeking a declaratory order that the reclamation contract is a valid permit under the Montana Opencut Mining Act. The Montana DEQ filed an answer and counterclaim to the complaint in August 2011, alleging JTL was in violation of the Montana Opencut Mining Act and requesting imposition of penalties of not more than $3.7 million plus not more than $5,000 per day from the date of the counterclaim. The Company believes the operation of the Target Range Gravel Pit was conducted under a valid permit; however, the imposition of civil penalties is reasonably possible. The Company filed an application for amendment of its opencut mining permit and intends to resolve this matter through settlement or continuation of the Montana First Judicial District Court litigation.

Former Employee Litigation On August 6, 2012, a former employee and his spouse filed actions against Connolly-Pacific and others in California Superior Court alleging the former employee contracted acute myelogenous leukemia from exposure to substances while employed as a seaman by the defendants. The plaintiffs request compensatory damages of approximately $23.8 million plus punitive damages, costs and interest. Connolly-Pacific is contesting the claims and believes it has meritorious defenses to them. Connolly-Pacific will seek insurance coverage for defense costs and any liability incurred in the litigation.

Natural Gas Gathering Operations In January 2010, SourceGas filed an application with the Colorado State District Court to compel WBI Energy Midstream to arbitrate a dispute regarding operating pressures under a natural gas gathering contract on one of WBI Energy Midstream's pipeline gathering systems in Montana. WBI Energy Midstream resisted the application and sought a declaratory order interpreting the gathering contract. In May 2010, the Colorado State District Court granted the application and ordered WBI Energy Midstream into arbitration. In October 2010, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of SourceGas for approximately $26.6 million. The Colorado Court of Appeals issued a decision on May 24, 2012, reversing the Colorado State District Court order compelling arbitration, vacating the final award and remanding the case to the Colorado State District Court to determine SourceGas's claims and WBI Energy Midstream's counterclaims. On remand of the matter to the Colorado State District Court, SourceGas may assert claims similar to those asserted in the arbitration proceeding.

In a related matter, Omimex filed a complaint against WBI Energy Midstream in Montana Seventeenth Judicial District Court in July 2010 alleging WBI Energy Midstream breached a separate gathering contract with Omimex as a result of the increased operating pressures demanded by SourceGas on the same natural gas gathering system. In December 2011, Omimex filed an amended complaint alleging WBI Energy Midstream breached obligations to operate its gathering system as a common carrier under United States and Montana law. WBI Energy Midstream removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Montana. The parties subsequently settled the breach of contract claim and, subject to final determination on liability, stipulated to the damages on the common carrier claim, for amounts that are not material. A trial on the common carrier claim was held during July 2013, but a decision has not been issued.

Exploration and Production During the ordinary course of its business, Fidelity is subject to audit for various production related taxes by certain state and federal tax authorities for varying periods as well as claims for royalty obligations under lease agreements for oil and gas production. Disputes may exist regarding facts and questions of law relating to the tax and royalty obligations.

On May 15, 2013, Austin Holdings, LLC filed an action against Fidelity in Wyoming State District Court alleging Fidelity violated the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act and implied lease covenants by deducting production costs from and by failing to properly report and pay royalties for coalbed methane gas production in Wyoming. The plaintiff, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, seeks class certification for similarly situated persons and an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the class for unpaid royalties, interest, reporting violations and attorney fees. Fidelity believes it has meritorious defenses against class certification and the claims.

The Company also is subject to other litigation, and actual and potential claims in the ordinary course of its business which may include, but are not limited to, matters involving property damage, personal injury, and environmental, contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations. Accruals are based on the best information available but actual losses in future periods are affected by various factors making them uncertain. After taking into account liabilities accrued for the foregoing matters, management believes that the outcomes with respect to the above issues and other probable and reasonably possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued, while uncertain, will not have a material effect upon the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental matters

Portland Harbor Site In December 2000, Knife River - Northwest was named by the EPA as a PRP in connection with the cleanup of a riverbed site adjacent to a commercial property site acquired by Knife River - Northwest from Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. in 1999. The riverbed site is part of the Portland, Oregon, Harbor Superfund Site. The EPA wants responsible parties to share in the cleanup of sediment contamination in the Willamette River. To date, costs of the overall remedial investigation and feasibility study of the harbor site are being recorded, and initially paid, through an administrative consent order by the LWG, a group of several entities, which does not include Knife River - Northwest or Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. Investigative costs are indicated to be in excess of $70 million. It is not possible to estimate the cost of a corrective action plan until the remedial investigation and feasibility study have been completed, the EPA has decided on a strategy and a ROD has been published. Corrective action will be taken after the development of a proposed plan and ROD on the harbor site is issued. Knife River - Northwest also received notice in January 2008 that the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council intends to perform an injury assessment to natural resources resulting from the release of hazardous substances at the Harbor Superfund Site. The Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council indicates the injury determination is appropriate to facilitate early settlement of damages and restoration for natural resource injuries. It is not possible to estimate the costs of natural resource damages until an assessment is completed and allocations are undertaken.

Based upon a review of the Portland Harbor sediment contamination evaluation by the Oregon DEQ and other information available, Knife River - Northwest does not believe it is a Responsible Party. In addition, Knife River - Northwest has notified Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., that it intends to seek indemnity for liabilities incurred in relation to the above matters pursuant to the terms of their sale agreement. Knife River - Northwest has entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations in connection with the LWG's potential claim for contribution to the costs of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. By letter in March 2009, LWG stated its intent to file suit against Knife River - Northwest and others to recover LWG's investigation costs to the extent Knife River - Northwest cannot demonstrate its non-liability for the contamination or is unwilling to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process that has been established to address the matter. At this time, Knife River - Northwest has agreed to participate in the alternative dispute resolution process.

The Company believes it is not probable that it will incur any material environmental remediation costs or damages in relation to the above referenced administrative action.

Manufactured Gas Plant Sites There are three claims against Cascade for cleanup of environmental contamination at manufactured gas plant sites operated by Cascade's predecessors.

The first claim is for contamination at a site in Eugene, Oregon which was received in 1995. There are PRPs in addition to Cascade that may be liable for cleanup of the contamination. Some of these PRPs have shared in the investigation costs. It is expected that these and other PRPs will share in the cleanup costs. Several alternatives for cleanup have been identified, with preliminary cost estimates ranging from approximately $500,000 to $11.0 million. The Oregon DEQ is preparing a staff report which will recommend a cleanup alternative for the site. It is not known at this time what share of the cleanup costs will actually be borne by Cascade; however, Cascade anticipates its proportional share could be approximately 50 percent. Cascade has accrued $1.7 million for remediation of this site. In January 2013, the OPUC approved Cascade's application to defer environmental remediation costs at the Eugene site for a period of 12 months starting November 30, 2012. Cascade received an order reauthorizing the deferred accounting for the 12 months starting November 30, 2013.

The second claim is for contamination at a site in Bremerton, Washington which was received in 1997. A preliminary investigation has found soil and groundwater at the site contain contaminants requiring further investigation and cleanup. EPA conducted a Targeted Brownfields Assessment of the site and released a report summarizing the results of that assessment in August 2009. The assessment confirms that contaminants have affected soil and groundwater at the site, as well as sediments in the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. Alternative remediation options have been identified with preliminary cost estimates ranging from $340,000 to $6.4 million. Data developed through the assessment and previous investigations indicates the contamination likely derived from multiple, different sources and multiple current and former owners of properties and businesses in the vicinity of the site may be responsible for the contamination. In April 2010, the Washington Department of Ecology issued notice it considered Cascade a PRP for hazardous substances at the site. In May 2012, the EPA added the site to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. Cascade has entered into an administrative settlement agreement and consent order with the EPA regarding the scope and schedule for a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. Cascade has accrued $12.6 million for the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remediation of this site. In April 2010, Cascade filed a petition with the WUTC for authority to defer the costs, which are included in other noncurrent assets, incurred in relation to the environmental remediation of this site until the next general rate case. The WUTC approved the petition in September 2010, subject to conditions set forth in the order.

The third claim is for contamination at a site in Bellingham, Washington. Cascade received notice from a party in May 2008 that Cascade may be a PRP, along with other parties, for contamination from a manufactured gas plant owned by Cascade and its predecessor from about 1946 to 1962. The notice indicates that current estimates to complete investigation and cleanup of the site exceed $8.0 million. Other PRPs have reached an agreed order and work plan with the Washington Department of Ecology for completion of a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. A report documenting the initial phase of the remedial investigation was completed in June 2011. There is currently not enough information available to estimate the potential liability to Cascade associated with this claim although Cascade believes its proportional share of any liability will be relatively small in comparison to other PRPs. The plant manufactured gas from coal between approximately 1890 and 1946. In 1946, shortly after Cascade's predecessor acquired the plant, it converted the plant to a propane-air gas facility. There are no documented wastes or by-products resulting from the mixing or distribution of propane-air gas.

Cascade has received notices from and entered into agreement with certain of its insurance carriers that they will participate in defense of Cascade for these contamination claims subject to full and complete reservations of rights and defenses to insurance coverage. To the extent these claims are not covered by insurance, Cascade will seek recovery through the OPUC and WUTC of remediation costs in its natural gas rates charged to customers. The accruals related to these matters are reflected in regulatory assets.

Guarantees

Centennial guaranteed CEM's obligations under a construction contract. For more information, see Litigation in this note.

In connection with the sale of the Brazilian Transmission Lines, as discussed in Note 12, Centennial has agreed to guarantee payment of any indemnity obligations of certain of the Company's indirect wholly owned subsidiaries who are the sellers in three purchase and sale agreements for periods ranging up to 10 years from the date of sale. The guarantees were required by the buyers as a condition to the sale of the Brazilian Transmission Lines.

WBI Holdings has guaranteed certain of Fidelity's oil and natural gas swap agreement obligations. There is no fixed maximum amount guaranteed in relation to the oil and natural gas swap agreements as the amount of the obligation is dependent upon oil and natural gas commodity prices. The amount of derivative activity entered into by the subsidiary is limited by corporate policy. The guarantees of the oil and natural gas swap agreements at June 30, 2014, expire in the years ranging from 2014 to 2015; however, Fidelity continues to enter into additional derivative instruments and, as a result, WBI Holdings from time to time may issue additional guarantees on these derivative instruments. The amount outstanding by Fidelity was $14.5 million and was reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2014. In the event Fidelity defaults under its obligations, WBI Holdings would be required to make payments under its guarantees.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company have outstanding guarantees to third parties that guarantee the performance of other subsidiaries of the Company. These guarantees are related to construction contracts, natural gas transportation and sales agreements, gathering contracts and certain other guarantees. At June 30, 2014, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregated $76.7 million. The amounts of scheduled expiration of the maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregate $21.2 million in 2014; $35.7 million in 2015; $700,000 in 2016; $600,000 in 2017; $500,000 in 2018; $500,000 in 2019; $13.5 million, which is subject to expiration on a specified number of days after the receipt of written notice; and $4.0 million, which has no scheduled maturity date. The amount outstanding by subsidiaries of the Company under the above guarantees was $200,000 and was reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2014. In the event of default under these guarantee obligations, the subsidiary issuing the guarantee for that particular obligation would be required to make payments under its guarantee.

Certain subsidiaries have outstanding letters of credit to third parties related to insurance policies and other agreements, some of which are guaranteed by other subsidiaries of the Company. At June 30, 2014, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these letters of credit, aggregated $36.3 million. In 2014 and 2015, $7.0 million and $29.3 million, respectively, of letters of credit are scheduled to expire. There were no amounts outstanding under the above letters of credit at June 30, 2014.

WBI Holdings has an outstanding guarantee to WBI Energy Transmission. This guarantee is related to a natural gas transportation and storage agreement that guarantees the performance of Prairielands. At June 30, 2014, the fixed maximum amount guaranteed under this agreement was $4.0 million and is scheduled to expire in 2016. In the event of Prairielands' default in its payment obligations, WBI Holdings would be required to make payment under its guarantee. The amount outstanding by Prairielands under the above guarantee was $1.1 million. The amount outstanding under this guarantee was not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2014, because this intercompany transaction was eliminated in consolidation.

In addition, Centennial, Knife River and MDU Construction Services have issued guarantees to third parties related to the routine purchase of maintenance items, materials and lease obligations for which no fixed maximum amounts have been specified. These guarantees have no scheduled maturity date. In the event a subsidiary of the Company defaults under these obligations, Centennial, Knife River and MDU Construction Services would be required to make payments under these guarantees. Any amounts outstanding by subsidiaries of the Company for these guarantees were reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2014.

In the normal course of business, Centennial has surety bonds related to construction contracts and reclamation obligations of its subsidiaries. In the event a subsidiary of Centennial does not fulfill a bonded obligation, Centennial would be responsible to the surety bond company for completion of the bonded contract or obligation. A large portion of the surety bonds is expected to expire within the next 12 months; however, Centennial will likely continue to enter into surety bonds for its subsidiaries in the future. At June 30, 2014, approximately $666.9 million of surety bonds were outstanding, which were not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Variable interest entities

The Company evaluates its arrangements and contracts with other entities to determine if they are VIEs and if so, if the Company is the primary beneficiary.

Dakota Prairie Refining, LLC On February 7, 2013, WBI Energy and Calumet formed a limited liability company, Dakota Prairie Refining, and entered into an operating agreement to develop, build and operate Dakota Prairie Refinery in southwestern North Dakota. WBI Energy and Calumet each have a 50 percent ownership interest in Dakota Prairie Refining. WBI Energy's and Calumet's capital commitments, based on a total project cost of $300.0 million, under the agreement are $150.0 million and $75.0 million, respectively. Capital commitments in excess of $300.0 million are expected to be shared equally between WBI Energy and Calumet. The total project cost is currently estimated at $350 million. Dakota Prairie Refining entered into a term loan for project debt financing of $75.0 million on April 22, 2013. The operating agreement provides for allocation of profits and losses consistent with ownership interests; however, deductions attributable to project financing debt will be allocated to Calumet. Calumet's future cash distributions from Dakota Prairie Refining will be decreased by the principal and interest to be paid on the project debt, while the cash distributions to WBI Energy will not be decreased. Pursuant to the operating agreement, Centennial agreed to guarantee Dakota Prairie Refining's obligation under the term loan.

Dakota Prairie Refining has been determined to be a VIE, and the Company has determined that it is the primary beneficiary as it has an obligation to absorb losses that could be potentially significant to the VIE through WBI Energy's equity investment and Centennial's guarantee of the third-party term loan. Accordingly, the Company consolidates Dakota Prairie Refining in its financial statements and records a noncontrolling interest for Calumet's ownership interest.

Construction of Dakota Prairie Refinery began in early 2013 and the plant is not yet operational. Therefore, the results of operations of Dakota Prairie Refining did not have a material effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Income. The assets of Dakota Prairie Refining shall be used solely for the benefit of Dakota Prairie Refining. The total assets and liabilities of Dakota Prairie Refining reflected on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets were as follows:



	June 30, 2014		June 30, 2013		December 31, 2013
	(In thousands)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,283	$	63,089	$	4,774
Accounts receivable	—		5		—
Other current assets	2,136		—		26
Total current assets	34,419		63,094		4,800
Net property, plant and equipment	254,079		75,216		172,073
Total assets	$	288,498	$	138,310	$	176,873
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Long-term debt due within one year	$	3,000	$	3,000	$	3,000
Accounts payable	28,150		21,057		8,904
Taxes payable	225		—		5
Accrued compensation	256		—		26
Other accrued liabilities	494		300		461
Total current liabilities	32,125		24,357		12,396
Long-term debt	69,000		72,000		72,000
Total liabilities	$	101,125	$	96,357	$	84,396

Fuel Contract On October 10, 2012, the Coyote Station entered into a new coal supply agreement with Coyote Creek that will replace a coal supply agreement expiring in May 2016. The new agreement provides for the purchase of coal necessary to supply the coal requirements of the Coyote Station for the period May 2016 through December 2040.

The new coal supply agreement creates a variable interest in Coyote Creek due to the transfer of all operating and economic risk to the Coyote Station owners, as the agreement is structured so the price of the coal will cover all costs of operations as well as future reclamation costs. The Coyote Station owners are also providing a guarantee of the value of the assets of Coyote Creek as they would be required to buy the assets at book value should they terminate the contract prior to the end of the contract term and are providing a guarantee of the value of the equity of Coyote Creek in that they are required to buy the entity at the end of the contract term at equity value. Although the Company has determined that Coyote Creek is a VIE, the Company has concluded that it is not the primary beneficiary of Coyote Creek because the authority to direct the activities of the entity is shared by the four unrelated owners of the Coyote Station, with no primary beneficiary existing. As a result, Coyote Creek is not required to be consolidated in the Company's financial statements.

At June 30, 2014, Coyote Creek was not yet operational. The assets and liabilities of Coyote Creek and exposure to loss as a result of the Company's involvement with the VIE, based on the Company's ownership percentage, at June 30, 2014, was $9.7 million.