Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(8) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Commitments and Contingencies The Company has commitments to third parties for demand transportation charges. As of December 31, 2012, future payments under non-cancelable demand charges are approximately $252.4 million in 2013, $264.3 million in 2014, $284.7 million in 2015, $300.1 million in 2016, $303.9 million in 2017 and $1,409.7 million thereafter. The Company leases 14 drilling rigs and equipment for its E&P operations under leases that expire on January 1, 2015. The Company’s current aggregate annual payment under the leases is approximately $19.4 million. The lease payments for the drilling rigs and equipment, as well as other operating expenses for the Company’s drilling operations, are capitalized to natural gas and oil properties and are partially offset by billings to third-party working interest owners for their share of rig day-rate charges. The Company has 11 leases for pressure pumping equipment for its E&P operations under leases that expire between December 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018. The Company’s current aggregate annual payment under the leases is approximately $7.5 million. The lease payments for the pressure pumping equipment, as well as other operating expenses for the Company’s drilling operations, are capitalized to natural gas and oil properties and are partially offset by billings to third-party working interest owners for their share of fracture stage charges. The Company leases compressors, aircraft, vehicles, office space and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases expiring through 2020. As of December 31, 2012, future minimum payments under these non-cancelable leases accounted for as operating leases are approximately $75.5 million in 2013, $66.0 million in 2014, $41.4 million in 2015, $32.1 million in 2016, $16.8 million in 2017 and $31.1 million thereafter. The Company also has commitments for compression services related to its Midstream Services and E&P segments. As of December 31, 2012, future minimum payments under these non-cancelable agreements are approximately $30.5 million in 2013, $17.4 million in 2014, $10.5 million in 2015, $8.9 million in 2016, $3.4 million in 2017 and no agreements thereafter. During 2011 and 2012, SES entered into a number of short- and long-term firm transportation service and gathering agreements in support of our growing Marcellus Shale operations in Pennsylvania. In March 2011, SES entered into a precedent agreement with Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. pursuant to which it will enter into short- and long-term firm natural gas transportation services on Millennium’s existing system and expansions of the system are expected to be in-service by the second quarter of 2013 and late 2013. In June 2011, SES entered into separate 15 year agreements with each of Bluestone Pipeline Company of Pennsylvania, LLC (“Bluestone Gathering”), and Susquehanna Gathering Company I, LLC, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DTE Pipeline Company, an affiliate of DTE Energy Company. Bluestone Gathering would build and operate a natural gas gathering system in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and Broome County, New York, and provide gathering services to SES in support of a portion of our future Marcellus Shale natural gas production. This gathering system was initially placed into service in November 2012 and is expected to be fully completed during the first quarter of 2013. Susquehanna Gathering Company I, LLC. would build and operate gathering infrastructure from well pad receipt locations for deliveries into the Bluestone Gathering system as well as other potential field delivery points. This system was first placed into service November 2012 and will be constructed as necessary to support the company’s activities primarily in Susquehanna County. SES also executed firm transportation agreements with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (“TGP”) that increase our ability to move our Marcellus Shale natural gas production in the short term to market as well as a precedent agreement for an expansion project with a projected in-service date of November 2013 pursuant to which SES has subscribed for 100,000 Dekatherm/day of capacity. TGP’s expansion project will expand its 300 Line in Pennsylvania to provide natural gas transportation from the Marcellus Shale supply area to existing delivery points on the TGP system. TGP filed a certificate application for the project and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate on August 9, 2012. Construction would begin in second quarter 2013, with a projected November 1, 2013 in-service date. In March 2012, SES entered into a firm transportation agreement with TGP to utilize existing transportation capacity to various delivery points on TGP’s system. SES has agreed to enter a ten year firm transportation agreement with a total capacity of 130 MMcf per day. The capacity went into service in November 2012. In March 2012, SES entered into a precedent agreement with Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC for a proposed 121-mile pipeline connecting to the Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems in Schoharie County, New York. Subject to the receipt of regulatory approvals and satisfaction of other conditions, SES has agreed to enter a fifteen year firm transportation agreement with a total capacity of 150 MMcf per day. The project is expected to be in service by the second quarter of 2015. We have provided certain guarantees of a portion of SES’s obligations under these agreements. As of December 31, 2012, SES’s and SEPCO obligations for demand and similar charges under the firm transportation agreements and gathering agreements totaled approximately $2.8 billion and the Company has guarantee obligations of up to $100.0 million of that amount. In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million in the aggregate over a three year period. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $44.5 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company's capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to fully perform, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of December 31, 2012 had invested $25.8 million in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment. In December 2012, we received two one-year extensions to our exploration license agreements which expire on March 16, 2014 and March 16, 2015, respectively. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of December 31, 2012 and its future investment plans. Environmental Risk The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company. Litigation Tovah Energy In February 2009, SEPCO was added as a defendant in a Third Amended Petition in the matter of Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al. In the Sixth Amended Petition, filed in July 2010, in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas (collectively, the “Sixth Petition”), plaintiff alleged that, in 2005, they provided SEPCO with proprietary data regarding two prospects in the James Lime formation pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and that SEPCO refused to return the proprietary data to the plaintiff, subsequently acquired leases based upon such proprietary data and profited therefrom. Among other things, the plaintiff’s allegations in the Sixth Petition included various statutory and common law claims, including, but not limited to claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationships, various fraud based claims and breach of contract, including a claim of breach of a purported right of first refusal on all interests acquired by SEPCO between February 15, 2005 and February 15, 2006. In the Sixth Petition, plaintiff sought actual damages of over $55.0 million as well as other remedies, including special damages and punitive damages of four times the amount of actual damages established at trial. Immediately before the commencement of the trial in November 2010, plaintiff was permitted, over SEPCO’s objections, to file a Seventh Amended Petition claiming actual damages of $46.0 million and also seeking the equitable remedy of disgorgement of all profits for the misappropriation of trade secrets and the breach of fiduciary duty claims. In December 2010, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11.4 million in compensatory damages. The jury did not, however, award the plaintiff any special, punitive or other damages. In addition, the jury separately determined that SEPCO’s profits for purposes of disgorgement were $381.5 million. This profit determination does not constitute a judgment or an award. The plaintiff’s entitlement to disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy will be determined by the judge and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all the amount of profit to the plaintiff. On December 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to enter the judgment based on the jury’s verdict. On February 11, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to disregard certain findings. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for judgment and intervenor filed its motion for judgment seeking not only the monetary damages and the profits determined by the jury but also seeking, as a new remedy, a constructive trust for profits from 143 wells as well as future drilling and sales of properties in the prospect areas. A hearing on the post-verdict motions was held on March 14, 2011. At the suggestion of the judge, all parties voluntarily agreed to participate in non-binding mediation efforts. The mediation occurred on April 6, 2011 and was unsuccessful. On June 6, 2011, SEPCO received by mail a letter dated June 2, 2011 from the judge, in which he made certain rulings with respect to the post-verdict motions and responses filed by the parties. In his rulings, the judge denied SEPCO’s motion for judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to disregard certain findings. Plaintiff’s and intervenor’s claim for a constructive trust was denied but the judge ruled that plaintiff and intervenor shall recover from SEPCO $11.4 million and a reasonable attorney’s fee of 40% of the total damages awarded and are entitled to recover on their claim for disgorgement. The judge instructed that SEPCO calculate the profit on the designated wells for each respective period. SEPCO performed the calculation and provided it to the judge in June 2011. On July 5, 2011, plaintiff and intervenor filed a letter with the court raising objections to the accounting provided by SEPCO, to which SEPCO filed a response on July 11, 2011. On July 12, 2011, the judge sent a letter to the parties in which he ruled that after reviewing the parties’ respective position letters, he was awarding $23.9 million in disgorgement damages in favor of the plaintiff and intervenor. In the July 12, 2011 letter, the judge instructed the plaintiff and intervenor to prepare a judgment for his approval prior to July 21, 2011 consistent with his findings in his June 2, 2011 letter and the disgorgement award. On August 24, 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which plaintiff and intervenor are entitled to recover approximately $11.4 million in actual damages and approximately $23.9 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees which currently are estimated to be up to $8.9 million and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor. On September 23, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a new trial and on November 18, 2011 filed a notice of appeal. On November 30, 2011, the court approved SEPCO’s supersedeas bond in the amount of $14.1 million, which stays execution on the judgment pending appeal. The bond covers the $11.4 million judgment for actual damages, plus $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest, $1.3 million in post-judgment interest (estimating two years for the duration of appeal), and court costs. On June 22, 2012, SEPCO filed its appellate brief and, on June 25, 2012, plaintiff and intervenor filed a cross-appellate brief seeking limited remand to reassess the disgorgement determination. The parties filed their responses to the appellate and cross-appellate briefs on or about November 7, 2012. Both sides filed replies to the opposing party’s responses in January 2013. Oral arguments are expected to occur in spring 2013. Based on the Company's understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate defenses, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible after exhaustion of all appeals, an adverse final outcome to this lawsuit is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this lawsuit. If the plaintiff and intervenor were to ultimately prevail in the appellate process, the Company currently estimates, based on the judgments to date, that SEPCO’s potential liability would be up to $44.2 million, including interest and attorney’s fees. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to occurrence of certain events, such as denied appeals, and such re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Muncey On February 20, 2012, the Company became aware that SEPCO was named as a defendant in the matter of Gery Muncey v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, et al filed in the District Court of San Augustine County in Texas on January 31, 2012. The plaintiff in this case is also the intervenor in the Tovah Energy matter described above and alleged various claims including fraud, misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty that are purportedly independent of the claims alleged in the Tovah Energy matter but arise from the substantially same circumstances involved in the Tovah Energy matter. SEPCO’s motion for summary judgment was granted on July 9, 2012. On August 22, 2012, the court signed a final take-nothing judgment in SEPCO’s favor. The deadlines for filing appeals have expired, so this matter has been resolved in SEPCO’s favor. Bureau of Land Management In March 2010, the Company’s subsidiary, SEECO, was served with a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Little Rock, Arkansas. Based on the documents requested under the subpoena and subsequent discussions described below, the Company believes the grand jury is investigating matters involving approximately 27 horizontal wells operated by SEECO in Arkansas, including whether appropriate leases or permits were obtained therefor and whether royalties and other production attributable to federal lands have been properly accounted for and paid. The Company believes it has fully complied with all requests related to the federal subpoena and delivered its affidavit to that effect. The Company and representatives of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Attorney have had discussions since the production of the documents pursuant to the subpoena. In January 2011, the Company voluntarily produced additional materials informally requested by the government arising from these discussions. Although, to the Company’s knowledge, no proceeding in this matter has been initiated against SEECO, the Company cannot predict whether or when one might be initiated. The Company intends to fully comply with any further requests and to cooperate with any related investigation. No assurance can be made as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this inquiry or the impact of the final outcome of the discussions or any related proceeding. Other We are subject to various litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, individually or in aggregate, such litigation, claims and proceedings will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows but these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. We accrue for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Indemnifications The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to dispositions of assets. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. No liability has been recognized in connection with these indemnifications.

(8) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has commitments to third parties for demand transportation charges. As of December 31, 2012, future payments under non-cancelable demand charges are approximately $252.4 million in 2013, $264.3 million in 2014, $284.7 million in 2015, $300.1 million in 2016, $303.9 million in 2017 and $1,409.7 million thereafter.

The Company leases 14 drilling rigs and equipment for its E&P operations under leases that expire on January 1, 2015. The Company’s current aggregate annual payment under the leases is approximately $19.4 million. The lease payments for the drilling rigs and equipment, as well as other operating expenses for the Company’s drilling operations, are capitalized to natural gas and oil properties and are partially offset by billings to third-party working interest owners for their share of rig day-rate charges.

The Company has 11 leases for pressure pumping equipment for its E&P operations under leases that expire between December 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018. The Company’s current aggregate annual payment under the leases is approximately $7.5 million. The lease payments for the pressure pumping equipment, as well as other operating expenses for the Company’s drilling operations, are capitalized to natural gas and oil properties and are partially offset by billings to third-party working interest owners for their share of fracture stage charges.

The Company leases compressors, aircraft, vehicles, office space and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases expiring through 2020. As of December 31, 2012, future minimum payments under these non-cancelable leases accounted for as operating leases are approximately $75.5 million in 2013, $66.0 million in 2014, $41.4 million in 2015, $32.1 million in 2016, $16.8 million in 2017 and $31.1 million thereafter. The Company also has commitments for compression services related to its Midstream Services and E&P segments. As of December 31, 2012, future minimum payments under these non-cancelable agreements are approximately $30.5 million in 2013, $17.4 million in 2014, $10.5 million in 2015, $8.9 million in 2016, $3.4 million in 2017 and no agreements thereafter.

During 2011 and 2012, SES entered into a number of short- and long-term firm transportation service and gathering agreements in support of our growing Marcellus Shale operations in Pennsylvania. In March 2011, SES entered into a precedent agreement with Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. pursuant to which it will enter into short- and long-term firm natural gas transportation services on Millennium’s existing system and expansions of the system are expected to be in-service by the second quarter of 2013 and late 2013. In June 2011, SES entered into separate 15 year agreements with each of Bluestone Pipeline Company of Pennsylvania, LLC (“Bluestone Gathering”), and Susquehanna Gathering Company I, LLC, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DTE Pipeline Company, an affiliate of DTE Energy Company. Bluestone Gathering would build and operate a natural gas gathering system in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and Broome County, New York, and provide gathering services to SES in support of a portion of our future Marcellus Shale natural gas production. This gathering system was initially placed into service in November 2012 and is expected to be fully completed during the first quarter of 2013. Susquehanna Gathering Company I, LLC. would build and operate gathering infrastructure from well pad receipt locations for deliveries into the Bluestone Gathering system as well as other potential field delivery points. This system was first placed into service November 2012 and will be constructed as necessary to support the company’s activities primarily in Susquehanna County. SES also executed firm transportation agreements with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (“TGP”) that increase our ability to move our Marcellus Shale natural gas production in the short term to market as well as a precedent agreement for an expansion project with a projected in-service date of November 2013 pursuant to which SES has subscribed for 100,000 Dekatherm/day of capacity. TGP’s expansion project will expand its 300 Line in Pennsylvania to provide natural gas transportation from the Marcellus Shale supply area to existing delivery points on the TGP system. TGP filed a certificate application for the project and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate on August 9, 2012. Construction would begin in second quarter 2013, with a projected November 1, 2013 in-service date. In March 2012, SES entered into a firm transportation agreement with TGP to utilize existing transportation capacity to various delivery points on TGP’s system. SES has agreed to enter a ten year firm transportation agreement with a total capacity of 130 MMcf per day. The capacity went into service in November 2012. In March 2012, SES entered into a precedent agreement with Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC for a proposed 121-mile pipeline connecting to the Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems in Schoharie County, New York. Subject to the receipt of regulatory approvals and satisfaction of other conditions, SES has agreed to enter a fifteen year firm transportation agreement with a total capacity of 150 MMcf per day. The project is expected to be in service by the second quarter of 2015. We have provided certain guarantees of a portion of SES’s obligations under these agreements.

As of December 31, 2012, SES’s and SEPCO obligations for demand and similar charges under the firm transportation agreements and gathering agreements totaled approximately $2.8 billion and the Company has guarantee obligations of up to $100.0 million of that amount.

In the first quarter of 2010, the Company was awarded exclusive licenses by the Province of New Brunswick in Canada to conduct an exploration program covering approximately 2.5 million acres in the province. The licenses require the Company to make certain capital investments in New Brunswick of approximately $47 million in the aggregate over a three year period. In order to obtain the licenses, the Company provided promissory notes payable on demand to the Minister of Finance of the Province of New Brunswick with an aggregate principal amount of $44.5 million Canadian dollars. The promissory notes secure the Company's capital expenditure obligations under the licenses and are returnable to the Company to the extent the Company performs such obligations. If the Company fails to fully perform, the Minister of Finance may retain a portion of the applicable promissory notes in an amount equal to any deficiency. The Company commenced its Canada exploration program in 2010 and, as of December 31, 2012 had invested $25.8 million in New Brunswick towards the Company’s commitment. In December 2012, we received two one-year extensions to our exploration license agreements which expire on March 16, 2014 and March 16, 2015, respectively. No liability has been recognized in connection with the promissory notes due to the Company’s investments in New Brunswick as of December 31, 2012 and its future investment plans.

Environmental Risk

The Company is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Environmental and cleanup related costs of a non-capital nature are accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management believes any future remediation or other compliance related costs will not have a material effect on the financial position or reported results of operations of the Company.

Litigation

Tovah Energy

In February 2009, SEPCO was added as a defendant in a Third Amended Petition in the matter of Tovah Energy, LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes, et, al. In the Sixth Amended Petition, filed in July 2010, in the 273rd District Court in Shelby County, Texas (collectively, the “Sixth Petition”), plaintiff alleged that, in 2005, they provided SEPCO with proprietary data regarding two prospects in the James Lime formation pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and that SEPCO refused to return the proprietary data to the plaintiff, subsequently acquired leases based upon such proprietary data and profited therefrom. Among other things, the plaintiff’s allegations in the Sixth Petition included various statutory and common law claims, including, but not limited to claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationships, various fraud based claims and breach of contract, including a claim of breach of a purported right of first refusal on all interests acquired by SEPCO between February 15, 2005 and February 15, 2006. In the Sixth Petition, plaintiff sought actual damages of over $55.0 million as well as other remedies, including special damages and punitive damages of four times the amount of actual damages established at trial.

Immediately before the commencement of the trial in November 2010, plaintiff was permitted, over SEPCO’s objections, to file a Seventh Amended Petition claiming actual damages of $46.0 million and also seeking the equitable remedy of disgorgement of all profits for the misappropriation of trade secrets and the breach of fiduciary duty claims. In December 2010, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff with respect to all of the statutory and common law claims and awarded $11.4 million in compensatory damages. The jury did not, however, award the plaintiff any special, punitive or other damages. In addition, the jury separately determined that SEPCO’s profits for purposes of disgorgement were $381.5 million. This profit determination does not constitute a judgment or an award. The plaintiff’s entitlement to disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy will be determined by the judge and it is within the judge’s discretion to award none, some or all the amount of profit to the plaintiff. On December 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to enter the judgment based on the jury’s verdict. On February 11, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to disregard certain findings. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for judgment and intervenor filed its motion for judgment seeking not only the monetary damages and the profits determined by the jury but also seeking, as a new remedy, a constructive trust for profits from 143 wells as well as future drilling and sales of properties in the prospect areas. A hearing on the post-verdict motions was held on March 14, 2011. At the suggestion of the judge, all parties voluntarily agreed to participate in non-binding mediation efforts. The mediation occurred on April 6, 2011 and was unsuccessful. On June 6, 2011, SEPCO received by mail a letter dated June 2, 2011 from the judge, in which he made certain rulings with respect to the post-verdict motions and responses filed by the parties. In his rulings, the judge denied SEPCO’s motion for judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to disregard certain findings. Plaintiff’s and intervenor’s claim for a constructive trust was denied but the judge ruled that plaintiff and intervenor shall recover from SEPCO $11.4 million and a reasonable attorney’s fee of 40% of the total damages awarded and are entitled to recover on their claim for disgorgement. The judge instructed that SEPCO calculate the profit on the designated wells for each respective period. SEPCO performed the calculation and provided it to the judge in June 2011. On July 5, 2011, plaintiff and intervenor filed a letter with the court raising objections to the accounting provided by SEPCO, to which SEPCO filed a response on July 11, 2011. On July 12, 2011, the judge sent a letter to the parties in which he ruled that after reviewing the parties’ respective position letters, he was awarding $23.9 million in disgorgement damages in favor of the plaintiff and intervenor. In the July 12, 2011 letter, the judge instructed the plaintiff and intervenor to prepare a judgment for his approval prior to July 21, 2011 consistent with his findings in his June 2, 2011 letter and the disgorgement award. On August 24, 2011, a judgment was entered pursuant to which plaintiff and intervenor are entitled to recover approximately $11.4 million in actual damages and approximately $23.9 million in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees which currently are estimated to be up to $8.9 million and all costs of court of the plaintiff and intervenor. On September 23, 2011, SEPCO filed a motion for a new trial and on November 18, 2011 filed a notice of appeal. On November 30, 2011, the court approved SEPCO’s supersedeas bond in the amount of $14.1 million, which stays execution on the judgment pending appeal. The bond covers the $11.4 million judgment for actual damages, plus $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest, $1.3 million in post-judgment interest (estimating two years for the duration of appeal), and court costs.

On June 22, 2012, SEPCO filed its appellate brief and, on June 25, 2012, plaintiff and intervenor filed a cross-appellate brief seeking limited remand to reassess the disgorgement determination. The parties filed their responses to the appellate and cross-appellate briefs on or about November 7, 2012. Both sides filed replies to the opposing party’s responses in January 2013. Oral arguments are expected to occur in spring 2013. Based on the Company's understanding and judgment of the facts and merits of this case, including appellate defenses, and after considering the advice of counsel, the Company has determined that, although reasonably possible after exhaustion of all appeals, an adverse final outcome to this lawsuit is not probable. As such, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to this lawsuit. If the plaintiff and intervenor were to ultimately prevail in the appellate process, the Company currently estimates, based on the judgments to date, that SEPCO’s potential liability would be up to $44.2 million, including interest and attorney’s fees. The Company’s assessment may change in the future due to occurrence of certain events, such as denied appeals, and such re-assessment could lead to the determination that the potential liability is probable and could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Muncey

On February 20, 2012, the Company became aware that SEPCO was named as a defendant in the matter of Gery Muncey v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, et al filed in the District Court of San Augustine County in Texas on January 31, 2012. The plaintiff in this case is also the intervenor in the Tovah Energy matter described above and alleged various claims including fraud, misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty that are purportedly independent of the claims alleged in the Tovah Energy matter but arise from the substantially same circumstances involved in the Tovah Energy matter. SEPCO’s motion for summary judgment was granted on July 9, 2012. On August 22, 2012, the court signed a final take-nothing judgment in SEPCO’s favor. The deadlines for filing appeals have expired, so this matter has been resolved in SEPCO’s favor.

Bureau of Land Management

In March 2010, the Company’s subsidiary, SEECO, was served with a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Little Rock, Arkansas. Based on the documents requested under the subpoena and subsequent discussions described below, the Company believes the grand jury is investigating matters involving approximately 27 horizontal wells operated by SEECO in Arkansas, including whether appropriate leases or permits were obtained therefor and whether royalties and other production attributable to federal lands have been properly accounted for and paid. The Company believes it has fully complied with all requests related to the federal subpoena and delivered its affidavit to that effect. The Company and representatives of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Attorney have had discussions since the production of the documents pursuant to the subpoena. In January 2011, the Company voluntarily produced additional materials informally requested by the government arising from these discussions. Although, to the Company’s knowledge, no proceeding in this matter has been initiated against SEECO, the Company cannot predict whether or when one might be initiated. The Company intends to fully comply with any further requests and to cooperate with any related investigation. No assurance can be made as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this inquiry or the impact of the final outcome of the discussions or any related proceeding.

Other

We are subject to various litigation, claims and proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, individually or in aggregate, such litigation, claims and proceedings will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows but these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view may change in the future. If an unfavorable final outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable. We accrue for such items when a liability is both probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Indemnifications

The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to dispositions of assets. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. No liability has been recognized in connection with these indemnifications.