Contingencies and Commitments (Note)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Contingencies and Commitments

Contingencies

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved in a number of litigation and regulatory proceedings (including those described below). Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of them seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in making these estimates and our final liabilities may ultimately be materially different. Our total estimated liability in respect of litigation and regulatory proceedings is determined on a case-by-case basis and represents an estimate of probable losses after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case or proceeding, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases or proceedings, and the opinions and views of legal counsel. We account for legal defense costs in the period the costs are incurred.

July 2008 Common Stock Offering. On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the Company’s July 2008 common stock offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter.

A derivative action relating to the July 2008 offering filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 6, 2011 is pending. Following the denial on September 28, 2012 of its motion to dismiss and pursuant to court order, nominal defendant Chesapeake filed an answer in the case on October 12, 2012. By stipulation between the parties, the case is stayed pending resolution of the Tenth Circuit appeal.

2012 Securities and Shareholder Litigation. A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey K. McClendon. On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012 against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company’s asset monetization strategy, including liabilities associated with its volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon’s personal loans and the Company’s internal controls. On December 6, 2012, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On April 10, 2013, the Court granted the motion, and on April 16, 2013 entered judgment against the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal was complete on August 2, 2013, and on November 18, 2013 argument was heard. We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter.

A related federal consolidated derivative action and an Oklahoma state court derivative action are stayed pursuant to the parties' stipulation pending resolution of the appeal in the federal securities class action.

On May8, 2012, a derivative action was filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma against the Company's directors alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate waste related to the Company's officers and directors' use of the Company's fractionally owned corporate jets. On August 21, 2012, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of derivative standing, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling on December 6, 2012.

Regulatory Proceedings. On May 2, 2012, Chesapeake and Mr. McClendon received notice from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its Fort Worth Regional Office had commenced an informal inquiry into, among other things, certain of the matters alleged in the foregoing 2012 securities and shareholder lawsuits. On December 21, 2012, the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office advised Chesapeake that its inquiry is continuing as an investigation. The Company is providing information and testimony to the SEC pursuant to subpoenas and otherwise in connection with this matter and is also responding to related inquiries from other governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations.

The Company has received, from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain state governmental agencies, subpoenas and demands for documents, information and testimony in connection with investigations into possible violations of federal and state laws relating to our purchase and lease of oil and gas rights in various states. Chesapeake has engaged in discussions with the DOJ and state agencies and continues to respond to such subpoenas and demands, including a subpoena issued by the Michigan Department of Attorney General relating to its investigation of possible violations of that state’s criminal solicitation law.

Business Operations. Chesapeake is involved in various other lawsuits and disputes incidental to its business operations, including commercial disputes, personal injury claims, royalty claims, property damage claims and contract actions. With regard to contract actions, various mineral or leasehold owners have filed lawsuits against us seeking specific performance to require us to acquire their natural gas and oil interests and pay acreage bonus payments, damages based on breach of contract and/or, in certain cases, punitive damages based on alleged fraud. The Company has successfully defended a number of these cases in various courts, has settled others and believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims made in those pending at the trial court and on appeal. Regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment. The suits allege that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL. The Company is defending against certain pending claims, has resolved a number of claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits.

Based on management’s current assessment, we are of the opinion that no pending or threatened lawsuit or dispute relating to the Company’s business operations is likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The final resolution of such matters could exceed amounts accrued, however, and actual results could differ materially from management’s estimates.

Environmental Proceedings

The nature of the natural gas and oil business carries with it certain environmental risks for Chesapeake and its subsidiaries. Chesapeake has implemented various policies, procedures, training and auditing to reduce and mitigate such environmental risks. Chesapeake conducts periodic reviews, on a company-wide basis, to assess changes in our environmental risk profile. Environmental reserves are set for environmental liabilities for which economic losses are probable and reasonably estimable. We manage our exposure to environmental liabilities in acquisitions by using an evaluation process that seeks to identify pre-existing contamination or compliance concerns and addressing the potential liability. Depending on the extent of an identified environmental concern, Chesapeake may, among other things, exclude a property from the transaction, require the seller to remediate the property to our satisfaction in an acquisition or agree to assume liability for the remediation of the property.

On December 19, 2013, our subsidiary Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (CALLC) entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act at 27 sites in West Virginia. In a complaint filed against CALLC the same day in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, the EPA and WVDEP alleged that CALLC impounded streams and discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands without a federal permit in order to construct well pads, impoundments, road crossings and other facilities related to natural gas extraction. The consent decree, also lodged on December 19, 2013, is subject to court approval.

The consent decree requires CALLC to pay a civil penalty of approximately $3 million, to be divided evenly between the U.S. and the state of West Virginia. The consent decree settlement also requires that CALLC restore the affected wetlands and streams in accordance with an agreed plan, monitor the restored sites for up to 10 years to assure the success of the restoration, and implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure future compliance with the CWA and applicable West Virginia law. To offset the impacts to sites, CALLC is required by the consent decree to perform compensatory mitigation, which will likely involve purchasing credits from a wetland mitigation bank located in a local watershed. Eleven of the sites covered by the consent decree were subject to orders for compliance issued by the EPA in 2010 and 2011. Since then, CALLC has been correcting the alleged violations and restoring those sites in compliance with EPA’s orders. The settlement resolves alleged violations of both the CWA and state law.

In a related case, in December 2012, CALLC pled guilty to three misdemeanor violations of the CWA for unauthorized discharge at one of the sites subject to the consent decree of crushed stone and gravel into a local stream to create a roadway to improve access to a drilling site. CALLC paid a $600,000 penalty and has fully restored the site. We believe that CALLC is in compliance with the terms of probation. By operation of law, a CWA conviction triggers “disqualification”, by which the disqualified entity is prohibited from receiving federal contracts or benefits until the EPA certifies that the conditions giving rise to the conviction have been corrected. Disqualification of CALLC has not had, and we do not expect it to have, a material adverse impact on our business.

Commitments

Rig, Compressor and Other Operating Leases

As of December 31, 2013, we leased 45 rigs under master lease agreements with an aggregate undiscounted future lease commitment of $76 million. The lease commitments are guaranteed by Chesapeake and certain of its subsidiaries. Under the leases, we can exercise an early purchase option or we can purchase the rigs at the expiration of the lease for the fair market value at the time. In addition, in most cases, we have the option to renew a lease for negotiated new terms at the expiration of the lease. During 2013, we purchased 23 leased rigs from various lessors for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $141 million and paid approximately $22 million in lease termination costs. Through these transactions, we lowered our minimum aggregate undiscounted future rig lease payments by approximately $142 million. See Note 23 for further discussion related to additional leased rigs purchased subsequent to December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013, we leased 1,781 compressors under master lease agreements with an aggregate undiscounted future lease commitment of $260 million. The lease commitments are guaranteed by Chesapeake and certain of its subsidiaries. Under the leases, we can exercise an early purchase option or we can purchase the compressors at the expiration of the lease for the fair market value at the time. In addition, in most cases we have the option to renew a lease for negotiated new terms at the expiration of the lease. During 2013, we purchased 541 leased compressor units from various lessors for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $97 million, lowering our minimum aggregate undiscounted future compressor lease payments by approximately $73 million. See Note 23 for further discussion related to additional leased compressors purchased subsequent to December 31, 2013.

Future operating lease commitments related to rigs, compressors and other equipment or property are not recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The aggregate undiscounted minimum future lease payments are presented below.

	December 31, 2013
	Rigs		Compressors		Other		Total
	($ in millions)
2014	$	51	$	53	$	13	$	117
2015	11		50		11		72
2016	6		104		9		119
2017	7		23		3		33
2018	1		29		2		32
After 2018	—		1		1		2
Total	$	76	$	260	$	39	$	375

Rent expense for rigs, compressors and other equipment, including short-term rentals, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $158 million, $185 million and $184 million, respectively.

Gathering, Processing and Transportation Agreements

We have contractual commitments with midstream service companies and pipeline carriers for future gathering, processing and transportation of natural gas and liquids to move certain of our production to market. Working interest owners and royalty interest owners, where appropriate, will be responsible for their proportionate share of these costs. Commitments related to gathering, processing and transportation agreements are not recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets; however, they are reflected as adjustments to natural gas, oil and NGL sales prices used in our proved reserves estimates.

The aggregate undiscounted commitments under our gathering, processing and transportation agreements, excluding any reimbursement from working interest and royalty interest owners, are presented below.

	December 31, 2013
	($ in millions)
2014	$	2,002
2015	1,829
2016	1,921
2017	1,948
2018	1,762
2019 - 2099	7,728
Total	$	17,190

Drilling Contracts

Chesapeake has contracts with various drilling contractors to utilize approximately eight rigs with terms ranging from six months to three years. These commitments are not recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2013, the aggregate undiscounted minimum future payments under these drilling rig commitments are presented below:

	December 31, 2013
	($ in millions)
2014	$	36
2015	5
Total	$	41

In December 2013, we terminated a drilling contract prior to the end of its term and recognized a $15 million charge that is included in impairments of fixed assets and other in our consolidated statement of operations.

Drilling Commitments

In December 2011, as part of our Utica joint venture development agreement with Total S.A. (Total) (see Note 12), we committed to spud no less than 90 cumulative Utica wells by December 31, 2012, 270 cumulative wells by December 31, 2013 and 540 cumulative wells by July 31, 2015. Through December 31, 2013, we had spud 423 cumulative Utica wells and had met our 2012 and 2013 commitments. If we fail to meet the drilling commitment at July 31, 2015 for any reason other than a force majeure event, the drilling carry percentage used to determine our promoted well reimbursement will be reduced from 60% to 45% for the number of wells drilled in the subsequent 12-month period represented by the shortfall versus our drilling commitment. As such, any reduction would only affect the timing of the receipt of the drilling carry but not the total drilling carry to be received.

We have also committed to drill wells in conjunction with our CHK Utica and CHK C-T financial transactions and in conjunction with the formation of the Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust. See Note 8 for discussion of these transactions and commitments.

Property and Equipment Purchase Commitments

Much of the oilfield services and other equipment we purchase requires long production lead times. As a result, we have outstanding orders and commitments for such equipment. As of December 31, 2013, we had $30 million of purchase commitments related to future inventory and capital expenditures for oilfield services and other equipment.

Natural Gas and Liquids Purchase Commitments

We regularly commit to purchase natural gas and liquids from other owners in the properties we operate, including owners associated with our VPP transactions. Production purchased under these arrangements is based on market prices at the time of production, and the purchased natural gas and liquids are resold at market prices. See Note 12 for further discussion of our VPP transactions.

Net Acreage Maintenance Commitments

Under the terms of our joint venture agreements with Statoil, Total and Sinopec (see Note 12), we are required to extend, renew or replace certain expiring joint leasehold, at our cost, to ensure that the net acreage is maintained in certain designated areas. To date, we have satisfied our replacement commitments under the Statoil and Sinopec agreements. We had an estimated shortfall of approximately 13,000 net acres pursuant to our net acreage maintenance commitment with Total under the terms of our Barnett Shale joint venture agreement as of the December 31, 2012 measurement date and recorded a $26 million charge inimpairments of fixed assets and other in our consolidated statement of operations. We revised our estimate of the net acreage shortfall to be approximately 14,000 net acres as of December 31, 2013 and recorded an additional $2 million charge in 2013. Total has disputed our estimate of the shortfall, however, and the cash payment we ultimately make to Total could exceed amounts we have accrued.

Affiliate Commitments

Under the terms of our corporate revolving bank credit facility, certain of our subsidiaries, including our oilfield services companies, are not guarantors of the credit facility debt. Transactions between us and our non-guarantor subsidiaries may affect our EBITDA or indebtedness for purposes of our credit facility covenant calculations, but they would have no effect on the consolidated financial statements because the transactions would be eliminated through consolidation. See Note 3 for discussion of our covenant calculations.

In October 2011, we entered into a services agreement with our wholly owned subsidiary, COO, under which we guarantee the utilization of a portion of COO’s drilling rig and hydraulic fracturing fleets during the term of the agreement. Through October 2016, we are subject to monetary penalties if we do not operate a specific number of COO’s drilling rigs or utilize a specific number of its hydraulic fracturing fleets. As of December 31, 2013, we had recognized a nominal amount for non-utilization pursuant to the agreement and eliminated its impact in consolidation.

Other Commitments

In April 2011, we entered into a master frac service agreement with our equity affiliate, FTS International, Inc. (FTS), which expires on December 31, 2014. Pursuant to this agreement, we are committed to enter into a predetermined number of backstop contracts, providing at least a 10% gross margin to FTS, if utilization of FTS fleets falls below a certain level. To date, we have not been required to enter into any backstop contracts.

As part of our normal course of business, we enter into various agreements providing, or otherwise arranging, financial or performance assurances to third parties on behalf of our wholly owned guarantor subsidiaries. These agreements may include future payment obligations or commitments regarding operational performance that effectively guarantee our subsidiaries’ future performance.

In connection with divestitures, our purchase and sale agreements generally provide indemnification to the counterparty for liabilities incurred as a result of a breach of a representation or warranty by the indemnifying party or in regards to perfecting title to property. These indemnifications generally have a discrete term and are intended to protect the parties against risks that are difficult to predict or cannot be quantified at the time of the consummation of a particular transaction.

Certain of our natural gas and oil properties are burdened by non-operating interests such as royalty and overriding royalty interests, including overriding royalty interests sold through our VPP transactions. As the holder of the working interest from which such interests have been created, we have the responsibility to bear the cost of developing and producing the reserves attributable to such interests. See Note 12 for further discussion of our VPP transactions.