QEP is involved in various commercial and regulatory claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. QEP assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages are reasonably estimable based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. Because legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about uncertain future events. When evaluating contingencies, QEP may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. QEP's litigation loss contingencies are discussed below. Except for the Rocky Mountain Resources matter discussed below, QEP is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses (in excess of recorded accruals, if any) for these contingencies for the reasons set forth above. QEP believes, however, that the resolution of pending proceedings (after accruals, insurance coverage, and indemnification arrangements) will not be material to QEP's financial position, but could be material to results of operations in a particular quarter or year.

Environmental Claims

In October 2009, QEP received a cease and desist order from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to refrain from unpermitted work resulting in the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States at three sites located in Caddo and Red River Parishes, Louisiana. Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has assumed lead responsibility for enforcement of the cease and desist order and any possible future orders for the removal of unauthorized fills and/or civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. On June 28, 2013, the EPA issued to QEP an Administrative Complaint for the alleged violations. QEP and the EPA reached an agreement to settle the alleged violations through an Administrative Order, under the terms of which QEP paid an administrative penalty of $0.2 million. The Administrative Order is final. In 2012, QEP completed a field audit, which identified 112 additional instances affecting approximately 90 acres where work may have been conducted in violation of the Clean Water Act. QEP has disclosed each of these instances to the EPA under the EPA's Audit Policy (to reduce penalties) and to the COE. QEP is working with the EPA and the COE to resolve these matters, which will require the Company to undertake certain mitigation and permitting activities, and may require QEP to pay a monetary penalty.

In July 2010, QEP received a Notice of Potential Penalty (NOPP) from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regarding the assumption of ownership and operatorship of a single facility in Louisiana prior to transferring the facility's air quality permit. In 2011, QEP completed an internal audit, which identified 424 facilities in Louisiana for which QEP both failed to submit a complete permit application and to receive approval from the department prior to construction, modification, or operation. QEP has corrected and disclosed all instances of non-compliance to the LDEQ and is working with the department to resolve the NOPP. The LDEQ has assumed lead responsibility for enforcement of the NOPP, and may require the Company to pay a monetary penalty.

Litigation

Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC v. QEP Energy Company, Wexpro Company, Ultra Resources, Inc. and Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc., Civil No. 2011-7816, District Court of Sublette County, Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Resources, LLC (Rocky Mountain) filed its complaint on March 30, 2011, seeking determination of the existence of a 4% overriding royalty interest in State of Wyoming oil and gas Lease No. 79-0645 covering Section 16, T32-N R-109-W, Sublette County, Wyoming. QEP and the other defendants are current lessees of Lease 79-0645. Rocky Mountain alleges that the defendants have received benefits from Lease 79-0645 and have failed to pay Rocky Mountain monies associated with the claimed 4% overriding royalty interest since the issuance of the lease by the State of Wyoming in 1980. Rocky Mountain asserts claims for quiet title, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, conversion, constructive trust and prejudgment interest. On May 7, 2014, the trial court entered its order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the overriding royalty interest burdens QEP's lease. On June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied QEP's Petition for Writ of Review. On August 21, 2014, the trial court denied QEP’s Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Wyoming Supreme Court. At the conclusion of a trial in February 2015, and after being instructed by the Court that the overriding royalty interest burdened QEP’s lease, a jury rendered a verdict against QEP and awarded Rocky Mountain damages in the amount of $16.7 million, including interest. QEP believes that the Court’s ruling on summary judgment and the resulting jury instructions are in error and will appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court. While the appeal is pending, post-judgment interest accrues at the statutory rate of 10%. QEP estimates that, notwithstanding the verdict, the range of reasonably possible losses is still zero to $20 million.

Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In this putative class action arising out of the unitization practices and orders of the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation (Commissioner), plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all Haynesville Shale mineral owners (alleged to be over 50,000 in number) against the Commissioner and all Haynesville Shale unit operators. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 8, 2010, and claim that the Commissioner exceeded his statutory authority in creating and perpetuating units larger than the area that can be efficiently and economically drained by a single well. They seek declaratory relief that would nullify all such improper orders, along with an unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit operators sufficient to compensate the putative class members for the alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as a result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their mineral leases via unit operations. All defendants filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the primary ground that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the exclusive statutory judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:12), which the trial court granted, dismissing the action in its entirety. On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated plaintiffs' claims. Defendants asked for review by the Louisiana Supreme Court and on August 25, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim without prejudice as originally ordered by the District Court.

Yannick Gagné and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants. The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class certification is pending.

Litigation related to discontinued operations:

In accordance with the terms of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated October 19, 2014, by and between QEP Field Services and Tesoro, Tesoro agreed to assume the defense of, and indemnify, defend and hold harmless QEP Field Services and its affiliates, including QEP, from and against all liability, loss, cost, expense, claim, award or judgment associated with the following litigation matters previously disclosed: Questar Gas Company v. QEP Field Services Company and XTO Energy Inc. v. QEP Field Services Company. Therefore, in light of Tesoro’s indemnification obligations and after assessing Tesoro’s ability to satisfy its indemnification obligations, QEP believes it is not reasonably likely to have liability for these matters.

Commitments

Subsidiaries of QEP have contracted for gathering, processing, firm transportation and storage services with various third-party pipelines. Market conditions, drilling activity and competition may prevent full utilization of the contractual capacity. In addition, QEP has contracts with third parties who provide drilling services. Annual payments and the corresponding years for gathering, processing, transportation, storage, drilling, and fractionation contracts are as follows (in millions):



Year	Amount
2015	$	130.7
2016	$	120.6
2017	$	120.0
2018	$	117.1
2019	$	112.0
After 2019	$	407.4

QEP rents office space throughout its scope of operations from third-party lessors. Rental expense from operating leases amounted to $8.2 million, $7.8 million, and $7.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Minimum future payments under the terms of long-term operating leases for the Company's primary office locations are as follows (in millions):



Year	Amount
2015	$	8.4
2016	$	8.2
2017	$	8.4
2018	$	6.9
2019	$	6.8
After 2019	$	23.9