NOTE 9 — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

The authoritative guidance establishes a hierarchy for inputs used in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that the most observable inputs be used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the Company’s assumptions of what market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. The hierarchy is broken down into three levels based on the reliability of the inputs as follows:


Level 1:		Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

Level 2:		Quoted prices in active markets for similar assets and liabilities that are observable for the asset or liability; or

Level 3:		Unobservable pricing inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources, such as discounted cash flows models or valuations.

The financial assets and liabilities are classified based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment, and may affect the valuation of the fair value of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels. The Company’s policy is to recognize transfers in and/or out of fair value hierarchy as of the end of the reporting period for which the event or change in circumstances caused the transfer. The valuation policies are determined by the principal financial officer and are approved by the President. Fair value measurements are discussed with the Company’s audit committee, as deemed appropriate. Each quarter, the inputs used in the fair value calculations are updated and management reviews the changes from period to period for reasonableness. The Company has consistently applied the valuation techniques discussed below in all periods presented.

The following table presents the Company’s financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 by level within the fair value hierarchy


	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
September 30, 2014
ASSETS:
Commodity contracts		—	$	780,148		—	$	780,148
LIABILITIES:
Commodity contracts		—	$	1,048,557		—	$	1,048,557

December 31, 2013
ASSETS:
Commodity contracts		—		—		—		—
LIABILITIES:
Commodity contracts		—	$	125,773		—	$	125,773

We use Level 2 inputs to measure the fair value of gas commodity collar derivatives. Level 2 assets consist of commodity derivative assets and liabilities (See Note 7 – Derivative and Hedging Financial Instruments). The fair value of the commodity derivative assets and liabilities is estimated by the Company using the income valuation techniques utilizing the income approach and an option pricing model, which take into account notional quantities, market volatility, market prices, contract parameters, counterparty credit risk and discount rates based on published LIBOR rates. The Company validates the data provided by third parties by understanding the pricing models used, obtaining market values from other pricing sources, analyzing pricing data in certain situations and confirming that those securities trade in active markets. Assumed credit risk adjustments, based on published credit ratings, public bond yield spreads and credit default swap spreads, are applied to the Company’s commodity derivatives.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s warrant derivative financial instrument issued as a part of the ASD Credit Agreement were comprised of the warrants issued by the Company to purchase 19,500 shares of common stock with a put option (See Note 7—Derivative and Hedging Financial Instruments). The warrants were valued by third parties using a binomial lattice-based valuation model and were classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. The lattice-based valuation technique was utilized because it embodies all of the requisite assumptions (including the underlying price, exercise price, term, volatility, and risk-free interest-rate) that were necessary to measure the fair value of these instruments. The Company uses data from its peers as well as from external sources in the determination of the volatility and risk free interest rates used in the fair value calculations. A sensitivity analysis is performed as well to determine the impact of the inputs on the ending fair value estimate. Estimating fair values of derivative financial instruments requires the development of significant and subjective estimates that may, and are likely to, change over the duration of the instrument due to both internal and external market factors. In addition, option-based techniques are highly sensitive to volatility assumptions. An increase in the volatility would cause an increase in the fair value of the warrants. Likewise, a decrease in the volatility would cause a decrease in the value of the Warrants.

The significant assumptions used in the valuation of the warrant derivative liability as of December 31, 2012 were as follows:


Exercise price	$	1.63 per share
Stock price	$	2.89 per share
Volatility		75	%
Remaining Term of Warrants		1.41 years
Risk-free interest rate		0.20	%

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of financial liabilities classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy:


	September 30, 2014		September 30, 2013
Balance as of beginning of period	$	—	$	(2,216,839	)
Total realized and unrealized gains (losses)
Included in earnings		—		3,806
Issuances		—		—
Settlements		—		—
Transfers in and out of Level 3		—		—

Balance as of September 30	$	—	$	(2,213,033	)

Change in unrealized gains included in earnings Relating to instruments still held as of September 30	$	—	$	(3,806	)