CONTINGENCIES In September 2010, Windsor Permian (now known as Diamondback O&amp;G LLC) purchased certain property in Goodhue County, Minnesota, that was prospective for hydraulic fracturing grade sand. Prior to the purchase, the prior owners of the property had entered into a Mineral Development Agreement with the plaintiff and the Company purchased the property subject to that agreement. Windsor Permian subsequently contributed the property to Muskie. In an amended complaint filed in November 2012 by the plaintiff against the prior owners of the property, Windsor Permian and certain affiliates of Windsor Permian in the first judicial district court in Goodhue County, Minnesota, the plaintiff seeks damages from the Company and the other defendants alleging, among other things, interference with contractual relationship, interference with prospective advantage and unjust enrichment. In an order filed on May 24, 2013, the judge denied certain motions made by the defendants and set a trial date to determine liability, with a damage phase of the matter to commence on a later date if there is a determination of liability. Following a trial on the liability phase on June 21, 2013, the jury determined that the defendants intentionally interfered with plaintiff s contract but that the interference did not cause the plaintiff to be unable to acquire mining permits prior to the enactment of the moratorium by Goodhue County. The damage phase is expected to be set for trial in 2014 following additional discovery and the filing of motions. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend this action. While management has determined that the possibility of loss is remote, litigation is inherently uncertain and management cannot determine the amount of loss, if any, that may result. The Company could be subject to various possible loss contingencies which arise primarily from interpretation of federal and state laws and regulations affecting the natural gas and crude oil industry. Such