18.	Contingencies

The Company reserved $40.6 million and $45.3 million for potential liabilities related to litigation and environmental matters as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, which include amounts that may be reserved 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, which provided a $10 million bank letter of credit to Centennial in support of the guarantee obligation, which letter of credit expired in November 2010. 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. The demand seeks compensatory damages of $149.7 million. LPP's notice of demand for arbitration also demanded performance of the guarantee by Centennial. In June 2010, CEM and Bicent made a demand on Centennial Resources for indemnification under the 2007 purchase and sale agreement for indemnifiable losses, including defense fees and costs arising from LPP's arbitration demand and related to Centennial Resources' ownership of CEM prior to its sale to Bicent. Centennial and Centennial Resources filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York in November 2010, against CEM and Bicent seeking damages for breach of contract and other relief including specific performance of the 2007 purchase and sale agreement allowing for Centennial Resources' participation in the arbitration proceeding and replacement of the letter of credit. On January 28, 2011, CEM and Bicent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Centennial and Centennial Resources. On July 6, 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of New York entered an order granting CEM's motion to dismiss the complaint against it for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the State of New York also dismissed one of the claims against Bicent but denied Bicent's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against it including the claims for breach of contract damages and specific performance of the 2007 purchase and sale agreement. On September 19, 2011, Bicent filed an amended answer and counterclaim to the complaint of Centennial and Centennial Resources. The counterclaim seeks damages against Centennial Resources related to Bicent's costs of defending the LPP arbitration demand which Bicent alleges are in excess of $14.0 million. The arbitration hearing on LPP's claim was held in the third quarter of 2011. The Company believes the claims against Centennial and Centennial Resources are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Construction Materials In 2009, LTM provided pavement work under a subcontract for reconstruction at the Klamath Falls Airport owned by the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon. In October 2010, the City of Klamath Falls filed a complaint in Oregon Circuit Court against the project's general contractor alleging the work performed by LTM is defective. The general contractor tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to LTM and its insurance carrier. On January 18, 2011, the general contractor served a third party complaint against LTM seeking indemnity and contribution for damages imposed on the general contractor. LTM filed a fourth-party complaint seeking contribution and indemnity for damages imposed on LTM against the project engineer firm which prepared the specifications for the airport runway. LTM's insurance carrier accepted defense of the complaint against the general contractor and the third party complaint against LTM subject to reservation of its rights under the applicable insurance policy. Damages, including removal and replacement of the paved runway, were estimated by the plaintiff in its complaint as $6.0 million to $11.0 million. The Oregon Circuit Court granted a motion by LTM to dismiss certain of the plaintiff's claims relating to approximately $5.0 million of damages but allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint. In its amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts new claims with estimated damages of $21.9 million plus interest and attorney fees. LTM believes its work met the specifications of the subcontract and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Natural Gas Gathering Operations In January 2010, SourceGas filed an application with the Colorado State District Court to compel Bitter Creek to arbitrate a dispute regarding operating pressures under a natural gas gathering contract on one of Bitter Creek's pipeline gathering systems in Montana. Bitter Creek 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 Bitter Creek into arbitration. An arbitration hearing was held in August 2010. In October 2010, Bitter Creek was notified that the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of SourceGas for approximately $26.6 million. As a result, Bitter Creek, which is included in the pipeline and energy services segment, recorded a $26.6 million charge ($16.5 million after tax) in the third quarter of 2010, which is recorded in operation and maintenance expense on the Consolidated Statement of Income. On April 20, 2011, the Colorado State District Court entered an order denying a motion by Bitter Creek to vacate the arbitration award and granting a motion by SourceGas to confirm the arbitration award as a court judgment. The Colorado State District Court also awarded $293,000 to SourceGas for legal fees and expense. Bitter Creek filed an appeal from the Colorado State District Court's order and judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals on April 28, 2011.

In related matters, Noble Energy, Inc. made a written demand in December 2010, to Bitter Creek and SourceGas for arbitration under the gathering contract between Bitter Creek and SourceGas. Noble Energy, Inc. contends it is a third party beneficiary of the contract and alleged it is damaged by the increased operating pressures demanded by SourceGas on the natural gas gathering system. Bitter Creek filed a complaint in Colorado State District Court to enjoin arbitration by Noble Energy, Inc. On July 8, 2011, Bitter Creek and Noble Energy, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement to dismiss all claims between them without prejudice including withdrawal of Noble Energy, Inc.'s demand for arbitration. Omimex Canada, Ltd. filed a complaint against Bitter Creek in Montana District Court in July 2010 alleging Bitter Creek breached a separate gathering contract with Omimex Canada, Ltd. as a result of the increased operating pressures demanded by SourceGas on the same natural gas gathering system. Expert reports submitted by Omimex Canada, Ltd. contend its damages as a result of the increased operating pressures are $18.8 million to $22.6 million. The Company believes the claim asserted by Omimex Canada, Ltd. is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claim.

Natural Gas Distribution The WUTC on March 21, 2011, filed a complaint against Cascade, alleging pipeline safety violations in the operation of its natural gas distribution system. The complaint alleged more than 360 violations of pipeline safety regulations and sought relief including unspecified monetary penalties. Cascade filed its answer to the complaint admitting some and denying other of the alleged violations. Cascade and the WUTC staff entered into a settlement agreement filed with the WUTC on July 13, 2011, which was approved by the WUTC on August 3, 2011. The settlement provides for an immediate cash payment by Cascade of $425,000 and suspended penalties totaling up to $1.8 million which Cascade will be required to pay if it fails to comply with action items for remediation of violations and implementation of safety program improvements within timelines specified in the agreement. The Company's leadership is committed to pipeline safety compliance and over the past year and a half substantial resources have been invested by Cascade to improve pipeline safety documentation and procedures. Cascade recognized certain compliance issues and has been working with the WUTC to become fully compliant. Cascade believes most of the violations have been or are in the process of being remedied and intends to make significant additional technological and other investments over the next year to comply with the requirements of the settlement agreement and improve its compliance procedures and results.

The Company also is involved in other legal actions in the ordinary course of its business. Although the outcomes of any such legal actions cannot be predicted, management believes that the outcomes with respect to these other legal proceedings will not have a material adverse 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.

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 September 2011, the EPA issued notice of a proposal to add the site to the National Priorities List. Cascade has met with the EPA to discuss a possible settlement agreement and administrative order for performance of a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the site with the intent of reaching consensus on the scope and schedule for the remedial investigation and feasibility study. Cascade has reserved $6.4 million for 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 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.

Guarantees

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

In connection with the sale of the Brazilian Transmission Lines, as discussed in Note 10, 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 natural gas and oil swap and collar agreement obligations. There is no fixed maximum amount guaranteed in relation to the natural gas and oil swap and collar agreements as the amount of the obligation is dependent upon natural gas and oil commodity prices. The amount of hedging activity entered into by the subsidiary is limited by corporate policy. The guarantees of the natural gas and oil swap and collar agreements at September 30, 2011, expire in the years ranging from 2011 to 2012; however, Fidelity continues to enter into additional hedging activities and, as a result, WBI Holdings from time to time may issue additional guarantees on these hedging obligations. There were no amounts outstanding by Fidelity at September 30, 2011. 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 September 30, 2011, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregated $86.0 million. The amounts of scheduled expiration of the maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregate $1.6 million in 2011; $73.8 million in 2012; $1.3 million in 2013; $1.4 million in 2014; $100,000 in 2015; $100,000 in 2016; $800,000 in 2018; $300,000 in 2019; $2.6 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 $1.0 million and was reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2011. 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, natural gas transportation agreements and other agreements, some of which are guaranteed by other subsidiaries of the Company. At September 30, 2011, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these letters of credit, aggregated $27.4 million. In 2011 and 2012, $19.7 million and $7.7 million, respectively, of letters of credit are scheduled to expire. There were no amounts outstanding under the above letters of credit at September 30, 2011.

WBI Holdings has an outstanding guarantee to Williston Basin. This guarantee is related to a natural gas transportation and storage agreement that guarantees the performance of Prairielands. At September 30, 2011, the fixed maximum amount guaranteed under this agreement was $5.0 million and is scheduled to expire in 2014. 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 $1.3 million. The amount outstanding under this guarantee was not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2011, 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 September 30, 2011.

In the normal course of business, Centennial has surety bonds related to construction contracts and reclamation obligations of its subsidiaries, as well as an arbitration award. 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. As of September 30, 2011, approximately $569 million of surety bonds were outstanding, which were not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.