or other parties. Additional lawsuits and claims related to the use of MTBE, including personal-injury claims, may be filed in the future. The tentative settlement of the referenced 60 lawsuits did not set any precedents related to standards of liability to be used to judge the merits of the claims, corrective measures required or monetary damages to be assessed for the remaining lawsuits and claims or future lawsuits and claims. As a result, the company’s ultimate exposure related to pending lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable, but could be material to net income in any one period. The company no longer uses MTBE in the manufacture of gasoline in the United States.

     RFG Patent  Fourteen purported class actions were brought by consumers of reformulated gasoline (RFG) alleging that Unocal misled the California Air Resources Board into adopting standards for composition of RFG that overlapped with Unocal’s undisclosed and pending patents. Eleven lawsuits were consolidated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where a class action has been certified, and three were consolidated in a state court action. Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers of RFG. Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest on behalf of an alleged class of consumers who purchased “summertime” RFG in California from January 1995 through August 2005. The parties have reached a tentative agreement to resolve all of the above matters in an amount that is not material to the company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial position. The terms of this agreement are confidential, and subject to further negotiation and approval, including by the courts.

     Environmental  The company is subject to loss contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require the company to take action to correct or ameliorate the effects on the environment of prior release of chemicals or petroleum substances, including MTBE, by the company or other parties. Such contingencies may exist for various sites, including, but not limited to, federal Superfund sites and analogous sites under state laws, refineries, crude oil fields, service stations, terminals, land development areas, and mining operations, whether operating, closed or divested. These future costs are not fully determinable due to such factors as the unknown magnitude of possible contamination, the unknown timing and extent of the corrective actions that may be required, the determination of the company’s liability in proportion to other responsible parties, and the extent to which such costs are recoverable from third parties.

     Although the company has provided for known environmental obligations that are probable and reasonably estimable, the amount of additional future costs may be material to results of operations in the period in which they are recognized. The company does not expect these costs will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or liquidity. Also, the