Question: What is the sum of the Price/mix-1 in the sections where Volume – Units is positive?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    part_0 = 12.9 - 7.9
    part_1 = part_0 + 4
    part_2 = part_1 - 1
    answer = part_2 + 8

    return answer

Table of Contents ADOBE INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) Goodwill, Purchased Intangibles and Other Long-Lived Assets Goodwill is assigned to one or more reporting segments on the date of acquisition.

We review our goodwill for impairment annually during our second quarter of each fiscal year and between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of any one of our reporting units below its respective carrying amount.

In performing our goodwill impairment test, we first perform a qualitative assessment, which requires that we consider events or circumstances including macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, changes in management or key personnel, changes in strategy, changes in customers, changes in the composition or carrying amount of a reporting segment’s net assets and changes in our stock price.

If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, we determine that it is more likely than not that the fair values of our reporting segments are greater than the carrying amounts, then the quantitative goodwill impairment test is not performed.

If the qualitative assessment indicates that the quantitative analysis should be performed, we then evaluate goodwill for impairment by comparing the fair value of each of our reporting segments to its carrying value, including the associated goodwill.

To determine the fair values, we use the equal weighting of the market approach based on comparable publicly traded companies in similar lines of businesses and the income approach based on estimated discounted future cash flows.

Our cash flow assumptions consider historical and forecasted revenue, operating costs and other relevant factors.

We completed our annual goodwill impairment test in the second quarter of fiscal 2018.

We determined, after performing a qualitative review of each reporting segment, that it is more likely than not that the fair value of each of our reporting segments substantially exceeds the respective carrying amounts.

Accordingly, there was no indication of impairment and the quantitative goodwill impairment test was not performed.

We did not identify any events or changes in circumstances since the performance of our annual goodwill impairment test that would require us to perform another goodwill impairment test during the fiscal year.

We amortize intangible assets with finite lives over their estimated useful lives and review them for impairment whenever an impairment indicator exists.

We continually monitor events and changes in circumstances that could indicate carrying amounts of our long-lived assets, including our intangible assets may not be recoverable.

When such events or changes in circumstances occur, we assess recoverability by determining whether the carrying value of such assets will be recovered through the undiscounted expected future cash flows.

If the future undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying amount of these assets, we recognize an impairment loss based on any excess of the carrying amount over the fair value of the assets.

We did not recognize any intangible asset impairment charges in fiscal 2018, 2017 or 2016.

During fiscal 2018, our intangible assets were amortized over their estimated useful lives ranging from 1 to 14 years.

Amortization is based on the pattern in which the economic benefits of the intangible asset will be consumed or on a straight-line basis when the consumption pattern is not apparent.

The weighted average useful lives of our intangible assets were as follows:

||Weighted AverageUseful Life (years)|
|Purchased technology|6|
|Customer contracts and relationships|9|
|Trademarks|9|
|Acquired rights to use technology|10|
|Backlog|2|
|Other intangibles|4|

Income Taxes We use the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes.

Under this method, income tax expense is recognized for the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year.

In addition, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and for operating losses and tax credit carryforwards.

We record a valuation allowance to reduce deferred tax assets to an amount for which realization is more likely than not.

2007 compared with 2006 The decrease in interest expense in 2007 compared with 2006 was primarily due to the following: ?

a $7.2 million decrease due to the retirement of the Company’s 5.625% euro notes in July 2006; ?

a decrease of $4.3 million related to higher capitalized interest during the construction of capital investment projects in 2007 compared with 2006; partially offset by; ?

an increase of $1.8 million as a result of additional expense related to the compounding of interest on the amount payable pursuant to the asbestos settlement agreement; and ?

an increase of $1.2 million due to the impact of higher interest rates on the Company’s $300.0 million of outstanding interest rate swaps entered into to effectively convert its 5.375% senior notes due April 2008 into floating rate debt.2006 compared with 2005 The decrease in interest expense in 2006 compared with 2005 was primarily due to the following: ?

a $7.5 million decrease due to the retirement of the Company’s 5.625% euro notes in July 2006, and ?

a decrease of $1.8 million related to higher capitalized interest during the construction of capital investment projects in 2006 compared with 2005; partially offset by; ?

an increase of $5.0 million due to the impact of higher interest rates on the Company’s $300.0 million of outstanding interest rate swaps entered into to effectively convert its 5.375% senior notes due April 2008 into floating rate debt; and ?

an increase of $1.7 million caused by additional expense related to the compounding of interest on the amount payable pursuant to the asbestos settlement agreement.

Gain on Sale of Equity Method Investment On February 9, 2007, the Company sold its 50% investment in PolyMask Corporation to its joint venture partner, 3M Company (the ‘‘PolyMask transaction’’).

The joint venture was formed in 1991 between the Company and 3M to produce and sell non-packaging surface protection films.

Prior to the sale, the Company accounted for this joint venture under the equity method of accounting.

The Company received an aggregate cash amount of $36.0 million for the transaction and other related assets and recorded a pre-tax gain of $35.3 million ($22.4 million after-tax) in the first quarter of 2007.

This gain was reflected as a gain on sale of equity method investment on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.

The Company’s proportionate share of PolyMask Corporation’s net income was $0.4 million in 2007, $3.9 million in 2006 and $2.6 million in 2005 and was included in other income, net, on the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company’s investment in this joint venture was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Other Income, Net The following table provides details of the Company’s other income, net:

||2007|2006|2005|
|Interest and dividend income|$19.9|$16.8|$11.1|
|Net foreign exchange transaction loss|-6.4|-4.1|-4.7|
|Asbestos settlement and related costs|-0.7|-1.6|-2.2|
|Advisory expenses incurred prior to ceasing work on an acquisition|-7.5|—|—|
|Loss on sale of small product line|-6.8|—|—|
|Gain on termination of forward starting interest rate swaps|3.7|—|—|
|Other, net|9.8|10.9|11.7|
|Other income, net|$12.0|$22.0|$15.9|

Interest and dividend income increased in 2007 compared with 2006 and 2005 primarily due to higher interest rates on the Company’s investments and to a lesser extent higher cash balances.

Global Operations We operate through our subsidiaries and have a presence in the U. S.  and the 57 other countries/regions listed below, enabling us to distribute our products to our customers in 122 countries/regions.

|Argentina|Egypt|Italy|Peru|Sweden|
|Australia|Finland|Jamaica|Philippines|Switzerland|
|Austria|France|Japan|Poland|Taiwan|
|Belgium|Germany|Kenya|Portugal|Thailand|
|Brazil|Greece|Luxembourg|Romania|Turkey|
|Canada|Guatemala|Malaysia|Russia|Ukraine|
|Chile|Hong Kong|Mexico|Saudi Arabia|United Arab Emirates|
|China|Hungary|Morocco|Singapore|United Kingdom|
|Colombia|India|Netherlands|Slovakia|Uruguay|
|Costa Rica|Indonesia|New Zealand|South Africa||
|Czech Republic|Ireland|Nigeria|South Korea||
|Denmark|Israel|Norway|Spain||

In maintaining our foreign operations, we face risks inherent in these operations, such as currency fluctuations, inflation and political instability.

Information on currency exchange risk appears in Part II, Item 7A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

Other risks attendant to our foreign operations are set forth in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors,” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

Information on the impact of currency exchange on our Consolidated Financial Statements appears in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

” Financial information showing net sales and total long-lived assets by geographic region for each of the two years ended December 31, 2017 appears in Note 4, “Segments,” which information is incorporated herein by reference.

We maintain programs to comply with the various laws, rules and regulations related to the protection of the environment that we may be subject to in the many countries/regions in which we operate.

See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under the caption “Environmental Matters.

” Employees As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately 15,000 employees worldwide.

Approximately 5,800 of these employees were in the U. S. , with approximately 112 of these employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Of the approximately 9,200 employees who were outside the U. S. , approximately 5,400 were covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Collective bargaining agreements related to 15% of our employees, primarily outside the U. S. , will expire within the next year and we will be engaged in negotiations to attain new agreements.

Many of the covered employees are represented by works councils or industrial boards, as is customary in the jurisdictions in which they are employed.

We believe that our employee relations are satisfactory.

Marketing, Distribution and Customers At December 31, 2017, we employed approximately 2,300 sales, marketing and customer service personnel throughout the world who sell and market our products to and through a large number of distributors, fabricators, converters, e-commerce and mail order fulfillment firms, and contract packaging firms as well as directly to end-users such as food processors, foodservice businesses, supermarket retailers, lodging, retail, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare facilities, medical device manufacturers, and other manufacturers.

To support our Food Care and New Ventures customers, we operate three Packforum?

innovation and learning centers that are located in the U. S. , France, and China.

Centers, we assist customers in identifying the appropriate packaging materials and systems to meet their needs.

We also offer ideation services, educational seminars, employee training and customized graphic design services to our customers.

To assist our marketing efforts for our Product Care products and to provide specialized customer services, we operate 35 industrial Package Design Centers (PDCs) worldwide within our facilities.

These PDCs are staffed with professional

net sales excluding the impact of foreign currency translation, a non-U.

S.  GAAP measure, which we define as “constant dollar” and the change in net sales excluding acquisitions and divestitures and the impact of foreign currency translation, a non-U.

S.  GAAP measure, which we define as "organic. "

We believe using constant and organic dollar measures aids in the comparability between periods as it eliminates the volatility of changes in foreign currency exchange rates and eliminates large fluctuations due to acquisitions or divestitures.

(1) Our price/mix reported above includes the net impact of our pricing actions and rebates as well as the period-to-period change in the mix of products sold.

Also included in our reported price/mix is the net effect of some of our customers purchasing our products in non-U.

S.  dollar or euro-denominated countries at selling prices denominated in U. S.  dollars or euros.

This primarily arises when we export products from the U. S.  and euro-zone countries.

The impact to our reported price/mix of these purchases in other countries at selling prices denominated in U. S.  dollars or euros was not material in the periods included in the table above.

Net Sales by Segment The following tables present the components of change in net sales by our segment reporting structure for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared with 2017 and for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared with 2016.

We also present the change in net sales excluding the impact of foreign currency translation, a non-U.


Question: What's the total amount of Defined benefit plans excluding those negative ones in 2015?

def solution():
    #Define variables name and value
    service_cost = 2
    interest_cost = 737
    curtailments = 1
    settlements = 3
    amortization = 50

    #Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = service_cost + interest_cost + curtailments + settlements + amortization

    return answer

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC.

|| Pension Benefits| Retiree Medical and Other Postretirement Benefits|
|| 2015| 2014| 2015| 2014|
|For plans with accumulated benefit obligations exceeding the fair value of plan assets:|||||
|Projected benefit obligation (PBO)|$16,369|$17,560|$—|$—|
|Accumulated benefit obligation (ABO)|16,357|17,548|—|—|
|Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO)|—|—|1,129|1,324|
|Fair value of plan assets|9,677|10,950|253|244|
|ABO less fair value of plan assets|6,680|6,598|—|—|

(1) At December 31, 2015, certain trust assets totaling approximately $24 million, were added to the retiree medical plan asset values that were previously offset against the benefit obligation.

(2) The 2015 noncurrent liability does not include $17 million of other postretirement benefits or $1 million of prior service costs.

The 2014 noncurrent liability does not include $18 million of other postretirement benefits or $2 million of prior service costs.

The following tables provide the components of net periodic benefit cost (income) for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 (in millions):

||Pension Benefits|Retiree Medical and OtherPostretirement Benefits|
||2015|2014|2013|2015|2014|2013|
|Defined benefit plans:|||||||
|Service cost|$2|$3|$3|$3|$1|$—|
|Interest cost|737|746|654|50|61|50|
|Expected return on assets|-851|-786|-720|-19|-19|-16|
|Curtailments|—|—|2|—|—|—|
|Settlements|1|4|-1|—|—|—|
|Amortization of:|||||||
|Prior service cost (benefit) (1)|28|28|28|-243|-244|-251|
|Unrecognized net loss (gain)|112|43|90|-9|-8|-9|
|Net periodic benefit cost (income) for defined benefit plans|29|38|56|-218|-209|-226|
|Defined contribution plans|662|546|328|N/A|N/A|N/A|
||$691|$584|$384|$-218|$-209|$-226|

(1) The 2015 prior service cost does not include amortization of $3 million related to other postretirement benefits.

The 2014 prior service cost does not include amortization of $14 million related to other postretirement benefits.

The estimated amount of unrecognized net loss for the defined benefit pension plans that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year is $126 million.

The estimated amount of unrecognized net gain for the retiree medical and other postretirement plans that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year is $16 million.

Table of Contents The components of total net special charges (credits) in our accompanying consolidated statements of operations are as follows (in millions):

||Year Ended December 31,|
|2015| 2014|2013|
|Other revenue special item, net -1|$—|$—|$-31|
|Mainline operating special items, net -2|1,051|800|559|
|Regional operating special items, net -3|29|24|8|
|Nonoperating special items, net -4|594|132|211|
|Reorganization items, net -5|—|—|2,655|
|Income tax special items, net -6|-3,015|346|-324|
|Total|$-1,341|$1,302|$3,078|

(1) In 2013, other revenue special item, net included a credit to other revenues related to a change in accounting method resulting from the modification of American’s AAdvantage miles agreement with Citibank.

(2) In 2015, mainline operating special items, net principally included $1.0 billion of merger integration expenses related to information technology, alignment of labor union contracts, professional fees, severance, share-based compensation, fleet restructuring, re-branding of aircraft and airport facilities, relocation and training.

In 2014, mainline operating special items, net principally included $810 million of merger integration expenses related to information technology, alignment of labor union contracts, professional fees, severance and retention, share-based compensation, divestiture of London Heathrow slots, fleet restructuring, re-branding of aircraft and airport facilities, relocation and training.

In addition, we recorded a net charge of $81 million for bankruptcy related items principally consisting of fair value adjustments for bankruptcy settlement obligations and an $81 million charge to revise prior estimates of certain aircraft residual values and other spare parts asset impairments.

These charges were offset in part by a $309 million gain on the sale of slots at DCA.

In 2013, mainline operating special items, net included $443 million of merger related expenses related to the alignment of labor union contracts, professional fees, severance, share-based compensation and fees for US Airways to exit the Star Alliance and its codeshare agreement with United Airlines.

In addition, we recorded a $107 million charge related to American’s pilot long-term disability obligation, a $43 million charge for workers’ compensation claims and a $33 million aircraft impairment charge.

These charges were offset in part by a $67 million gain on the sale of slots at LGA.

(3) The 2015 regional operating special items, net principally related to merger integration expenses.

The 2014 regional operating special items, net consisted primarily of a $24 million charge due to a new pilot labor contract at our Envoy regional subsidiary as well as $7 million of merger integration expenses, offset in part by an $8 million gain on the sale of certain spare parts.

(4) In 2015, nonoperating special items, net principally included a $592 million charge to write off all of the value of Venezuelan bolivars held by us due to continued lack of repatriations and deterioration of economic conditions in Venezuela.

In 2014, nonoperating special items, net principally included a $43 million charge for Venezuelan foreign currency losses, $56 million of early debt extinguishment costs primarily related to the prepayment of 7.50% senior secured notes and other indebtedness and $33 million of non-cash interest accretion on bankruptcy settlement obligations.

In 2013, nonoperating special items, net consisted of interest charges of $138 million primarily to recognize post-petition interest expense on unsecured obligations pursuant to the Plan and penalty interest related to 10.5% secured notes and 7.50% senior secured notes, a $54 million charge related to the premium on tender for existing EETC financings and the write-off of debt issuance costs and $19 million in charges related to the repayment of existing EETC financings.

Table of Contents The components of American’s total net special charges (credits) included in American’s accompanying consolidated statements of operations are as follows (in millions):

||Year Ended December 31,|
||2015| 2014|2013|
|Other revenue special item, net -1|$—|$—|$-31|
|Mainline operating special items, net -2|1,051|783|559|
|Regional operating special items, net -3|18|5|—|
|Nonoperating special items, net -4|616|128|121|
|Reorganization items, net -5|—|—|2,640|
|Income tax special items, net -6|-3,468|344|-324|
|Total|$-1,783|$1,260|$2,965|

In 2014, mainline operating special items, net principally included $803 million of merger integration expenses related to information technology, alignment of labor union contracts, professional fees, severance and retention, share-based compensation, divestiture of London Heathrow slots, fleet restructuring, re-branding of aircraft and airport facilities, relocation and training.

In addition, American recorded a net charge of $60 million for bankruptcy related items principally consisting of fair value adjustments for bankruptcy settlement obligations and an $81 million charge to revise prior estimates of certain aircraft residual values and other spare parts asset impairments.

These charges were offset in part by a $309 million gain on the sale of slots at DCA.

In 2013, mainline operating special items, net principally included $443 million of merger related expenses related to the alignment of labor union contracts, professional fees, severance, share-based compensation and fees for US Airways to exit the Star Alliance and its codeshare agreement with United Airlines.

In addition,American recorded a $107 million charge related to American’s pilot long-term disability obligation, a $43 million charge for workers’ compensation claims and a $33 million aircraft impairment charge.

These charges were offset in part by a $67 million gain on the sale of slots at LGA.

(3) The 2015 and 2014 regional operating special items, net principally related to merger integration expenses.

(4) In 2015, nonoperating special items, net principally included a $592 million charge to write off all of the value of Venezuelan bolivars held by American due to continued lack of repatriations and deterioration of economic conditions in Venezuela.

In 2014, nonoperating special items, net principally included a $43 million charge for Venezuelan foreign currency losses, $56 million of early debt extinguishment costs primarily related to the prepayment of 7.50% senior secured notes and other indebtedness and $29 million of non-cash interest accretion on bankruptcy settlement obligations.

In 2013, nonoperating special items, net consisted of interest charges of $48 million primarily to recognize post-petition interest expense on unsecured obligations pursuant to the Plan and penalty interest related to 10.5% secured notes and 7.50% senior secured notes, a $54 million charge related to the premium on tender for existing EETC financings and the write-off of debt issuance costs and $19 million in charges related to the repayment of existing EETC financings.

(5) In 2013, American recognized reorganization expenses as a result of the filing of voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11.

These amounts consisted primarily of estimated allowed claim amounts and professional fees.

freesheet paper were higher in Russia, but lower in Europe reflecting weak economic conditions and market demand.

Average sales price realizations for pulp decreased.

Lower input costs for wood and purchased fiber were partially offset by higher costs for energy, chemicals and packaging.

Planned maintenance downtime costs were higher due to executing a significant once-every-ten-years maintenance outage plus the regularly scheduled 18-month outage at the Saillat mill while outage costs in Russia and Poland were lower.

Manufacturing operating costs were favorable.

Entering 2013, sales volumes in the first quarter are expected to be seasonally weaker in Russia, but about flat in Europe.

Average sales price realizations for uncoated freesheet paper are expected to decrease in Europe, but increase in Russia.

Input costs should be higher in Russia, especially for wood and energy, but be slightly lower in Europe.

No maintenance outages are scheduled for the first quarter.

Indian Papers includes the results of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills (APPM) of which a 75% interest was acquired on October 14, 2011.

Net sales were $185 million in 2012 and $35 million in 2011.

Operating profits were a loss of $16 million in 2012 and a loss of $3 million in 2011.

Asian Printing Papers net sales were $85 million in 2012, $75 million in 2011 and $80 million in 2010.

Operating profits were improved from breakeven in past years to $1 million in 2012.

U. S.  Pulp net sales were $725 million in 2012 compared with $725 million in 2011 and $715 million in 2010.

Operating profits were a loss of $59 million in 2012 compared with gains of $87 million in 2011 and $107 million in 2010.

Sales volumes in 2012 increased from 2011 primarily due to the start-up of pulp production at the Franklin mill in the third quarter of 2012.

Average sales price realizations were significantly lower for both fluff pulp and market pulp.

Input costs were lower, primarily for wood and energy.

Mill operating costs were unfavorable primarily due to costs associated with the start-up of the Franklin mill.

Planned maintenance downtime costs were lower.

In the first quarter of 2013, sales volumes are expected to be flat with the fourth quarter of 2012.

Average sales price realizations are expected to improve reflecting the realization of sales price increases for paper and tissue pulp that were announced in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Planned maintenance downtime costs should be about $9 million higher than in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Manufacturing costs related to the Franklin mill should be lower as we continue to improve operations.

Consumer Packaging Demand and pricing for Consumer Packaging products correlate closely with consumer spending and general economic activity.

In addition to prices and volumes, major factors affecting the profitability of Consumer Packaging are raw material and energy costs, freight costs, manufacturing efficiency and product mix.

Consumer Packaging net sales in 2012 decreased 15% from 2011 and 7% from 2010.

Operating profits increased 64% from 2011 and 29% from 2010.

Net sales and operating profits include the Shorewood business in 2011 and 2010.

Excluding asset impairment and other charges associated with the sale of the Shorewood business, and facility closure costs, 2012 operating profits were 27% lower than in 2011, but 23% higher than in 2010.

Benefits from lower raw material costs ($22 million), lower maintenance outage costs ($5 million) and other items ($2 million) were more than offset by lower sales price realizations and an unfavorable product mix ($66 million), lower sales volumes and increased market-related downtime ($22 million), and higher operating costs ($40 million).

In addition, operating profits in 2012 included a gain of $3 million related to the sale of the Shorewood business while operating profits in 2011 included a $129 million fixed asset impairment charge for the North American Shorewood business and $72 million for other charges associated with the sale of the Shorewood business.

North American Consumer Packaging net sales were $2.0 billion in 2012 compared with $2.5 billion in 2011 and $2.4 billion in 2010.

Operating profits were $165 million ($162 million excluding a gain related to the sale of the Shorewood business) in 2012 compared with $35 million ($236 million excluding asset impairment and other charges associated with the sale of the Shorewood business) in 2011 and $97 million ($105 million excluding facility closure costs) in 2010.

Coated Paperboard sales volumes in 2012 were lower than in 2011 reflecting weaker market demand.

Average sales price realizations were lower, primarily for folding carton board.

Input costs for wood increased, but were partially offset by lower costs for chemicals and energy.

Planned maintenance downtime costs were slightly lower.

Market-related downtime was about 113,000 tons in 2012 compared with about 38,000 tons in 2011.


Question: What's the average of Notes payable, including accrued interest of Less than 1 year, and Gross written premiums of Years Ended December 31, 2012 ?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    notes_payable = 102493.0
    gross_written_premiums = 1073.1
    const_2 = 2

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = (notes_payable + gross_written_premiums) / const_2

    return answer

A summary of these various obligations at December 31, 2012, follows (in millions):

Represents estimated cash payments, on an undiscounted and unescalated basis, associated with reclamation and environmental activities.

The timing and the amount of these payments could change as a result of changes in regulatory requirements, changes in scope and timing of reclamation activities, the settlement of environmental matters and as actual spending occurs.

Refer to Note 13 for additional discussion of environmental and reclamation matters.

Represents contractual obligations for purchases of goods or services that are defined by us as agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms.

Take-orpay contracts primarily comprise the procurement of copper concentrates ($799 million), electricity ($524 million) and transportation services ($448 million).

Some of our take-or-pay contracts are settled based on the prevailing market rate for the service or commodity purchased, and in some cases, the amount of the actual obligation may change over time because of market conditions.

Obligations for copper concentrates provide for deliveries of specified volumes to Atlantic Copper at market-based prices.

Electricity obligations are primarily for contractual minimum demand at the South America and Tenke mines.

Transportation obligations are primarily for South America contracted ocean freight and for North America rail freight.

c.  Scheduled interest payment obligations were calculated using stated coupon rates for fixed-rate debt and interest rates applicable at December 31, 2012, for variable-rate debt.

d.  This table excludes certain other obligations in our consolidated balance sheets, including estimated funding for pension obligations as the funding may vary from year to year based on changes in the fair value of plan assets and actuarial assumptions, accrued liabilities totaling $107 million that relate to unrecognized tax benefits where the timing of settlement is not determinable; Atlantic Copper's obligations for retired employees totaling $38 million (refer to Note 10); and PT Freeport Indonesia's reclamation and closure cash fund obligation totaling $17 million (refer to Note 13).

This table also excludes purchase orders for the purchase of inventory and other goods and services, as purchase orders typically represent authorizations to purchase rather than binding agreements.

In addition to our debt maturities and other contractual obligations discussed above, we have other commitments, which we expect to fund with available cash, projected operating cash flows, available credit facility or future financing transactions, if necessary.

These include (i) PT Freeport Indonesia’s commitment to provide one percent of its annual revenue for the development of the local people in its area of operations through the Freeport Partnership Fund for Community Development, (ii) TFM’s commitment to provide 0.3 percent of its annual revenue for the development of the local people in its area of operations and (iii) other commercial commitments, including standby letters of credit, surety bonds and guarantees.

Refer to Notes 13 and 14 for further discussion.

CONTINGENCIES Environmental The cost of complying with environmental laws is a fundamental and substantial cost of our business.

At December 31, 2012, we had $1.2 billion recorded in our consolidated balance sheets for environmental obligations attributed to CERCLA or analogous state programs and for estimated future costs associated with environmental obligations that are considered probable based on specific facts and circumstances.

During 2012, we incurred environmental capital expenditures and other environmental costs (including our joint venture partners’ shares) of $612 million for programs to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations that affect our operations, compared to $387 million in 2011 and $372 million in 2010.

The increase in environmental costs in 2012, compared with 2011 and 2010, primarily relates to higher expenditures for land and settlements of environmental matters (see Note 13 for further discussion).

For 2013, we expect to incur approximately $600 million of aggregate environmental capital expenditures and other environmental costs, which are part of our overall 2013 operating budget.

The timing and amount of estimated payments could change as a result of changes in regulatory requirements, changes in scope and timing of reclamation activities, the settlement of environmental matters and as actual spending occurs.

Refer to Note 13 for further information about environmental regulation, including significant environmental matters.

Asset Retirement Obligations We recognize AROs as liabilities when incurred, with the initial measurement at fair value.

These obligations, which are initially estimated based on discounted cash flow estimates, are accreted to full value over time through charges to income.

Reclamation costs for disturbances are recorded as an ARO in the period of disturbance.

Our cost estimates are reflected on a third-party cost basis and comply with our legal obligation to retire tangible, long-lived assets.

At December 31, 2012, we had $1.1 billion recorded in our consolidated balance sheets for AROs.

ILLUMINA, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) Advertising Costs The Company expenses advertising costs as incurred.

Advertising costs were approximately $440,000 for 2003, $267,000 for 2002 and $57,000 for 2001.

Income Taxes A deferred income tax asset or liability is computed for the expected future impact of differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities, as well as the expected future tax benefit to be derived from tax loss and credit carryforwards.

Deferred income tax expense is generally the net change during the year in the deferred income tax asset or liability.

Valuation allowances are established when realizability of deferred tax assets is uncertain.

The effect of tax rate changes is reflected in tax expense during the period in which such changes are enacted.

Foreign Currency Translation The functional currencies of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries are their respective local currencies.

Accordingly, all balance sheet accounts of these operations are translated to U. S.  dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date, and revenues and expenses are translated using the average exchange rates in effect during the period.

The gains and losses from foreign currency translation of these subsidiaries’ financial statements are recorded directly as a separate component of stockholders’ equity under the caption ‘‘Accumulated other comprehensive income.

’’ Stock-Based Compensation At December 28, 2003, the Company has three stock-based employee and non-employee director compensation plans, which are described more fully in Note 5.

As permitted by SFAS No.123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, the Company accounts for common stock options granted, and restricted stock sold, to employees, founders and directors using the intrinsic value method and, thus, recognizes no compensation expense for options granted, or restricted stock sold, with exercise prices equal to or greater than the fair value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant.

The Company has recorded deferred stock compensation related to certain stock options, and restricted stock, which were granted prior to the Company’s initial public offering with exercise prices below estimated fair value (see Note 5), which is being amortized on an accelerated amortization methodology in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation Number (‘‘FIN’’) 28.

Pro forma information regarding net loss is required by SFAS No.123 and has been determined as if the Company had accounted for its employee stock options and employee stock purchases under the fair value method of that statement.

The fair value for these options was estimated at the dates of grant using the fair value option pricing model (Black Scholes) with the following weighted-average assumptions for 2003, 2002 and 2001:

||Year Ended  December 28,  2003|Year Ended  December 29,  2002|Year Ended  December 30,  2001|
|Weighted average risk-free interest rate|3.03%|3.73%|4.65%|
|Expected dividend yield|0%|0%|0%|
|Weighted average volatility|103%|104%|119%|
|Estimated life (in years)|5|5|5|
|Weighted average fair value of options granted|$3.31|$4.39|$7.51|

The Company renewed an unsecured bank credit line on April 29, 2010 which provides for funding of up to $5,000 and bears interest at the prime rate less 1% (2.25% at June 30, 2010).

The credit line was renewed through April 29, 2012.

The Company renewed a bank credit line on March 7, 2010 which provides for funding of up to $8,000 and bears interest at the Federal Reserve Board’s prime rate (3.25% at June 30, 2010).

The credit line expires March 7, 2011 and is secured by $1,000 of investments.

At June 30, 2010, no amount was outstanding.

The Company has entered into a bank credit facility agreement that includes a revolving loan, a term loan and a bullet term loan.

The revolving loan allows short-term borrowings of up to $150,000, which may be increased by the Company at any time until maturity to $250,000.

The revolving loan terminates June 4, 2015.

At June 30, 2010, the outstanding revolving loan balance was $120,000.

The term loan has an original principal balance of $150,000, with quarterly principal payments of $5,625 beginning on September 30, 2011, and the remaining balance due June 4, 2015.

The bullet term loan had an original principal balance of $100,000.

The full balance, which would have been due on December 4, 2010, was paid in full on July 8, 2010 as set forth in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements (see Item 8).

Each of the loans bear interest at a variable rate equal to (a) a rate based on LIBOR or (b) an alternate base rate (the greater of (a) the Federal Funds Rate plus 0.5%, (b) the Prime Rate or (c) LIBOR plus 1.0%), plus an applicable percentage in each case determined by the Company’s leverage ratio.

The outstanding balances bear interest at a weighted average rate of 2.99%.

The loans are secured by pledges of capital stock of certain subsidiaries of the Company.

The loans are also guaranteed by certain subsidiaries of the Company.

The credit facility is subject to various financial covenants that require the Company to maintain certain financial ratios as defined in the agreement.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was in compliance with all such covenants.

The Company has entered into various capital lease obligations for the use of certain computer equipment.

Included in property and equipment are related assets of $8,872.

At June 30, 2010, $5,689 was outstanding, of which $4,380 will be maturing in the next twelve months.

Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments At June 30, 2010 the Company’s total off balance sheet contractual obligations were $36,935.

This balance consists of $27,228 of long-term operating leases for various facilities and equipment which expire from 2011 to 2017 and the remaining $9,707 is for purchase commitments related to property and equipment, particularly for contractual obligations related to the on-going construction of new facilities.

The table excludes $7,548 of liabilities for uncertain tax positions as we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate amount or timing of settlement.

Contractual obligations by Less than More than

Recent Accounting Pronouncements In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement on Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No.141(R), “Business Combinations,” (“SFAS 141(R)”) which replaces SFAS No.141 and has since been incorporated into the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) as ASC 805-10.

ASC 805-10 establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, any non-controlling interest in the acquired entity and the goodwill acquired.

The Statement also establishes disclosure requirements which will enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the business combination.

Relative to SFAS 141(R), the FASB issued FSP 141(R)-1 on April 1, 2009, which is now incorporated in ASC 805-20.

ASC 805-20 eliminates the requirement under FAS 141(R) to record assets and liabilities at the acquisition date for noncontractual contingencies at fair value where it is deemed “more-likely-than-not” that an asset or liability would result.

Under ASC 805-20, such assets and liabilities would only need to be recorded where the fair value can be determined during the measurement period or where it is probable that an asset or liability exists at the acquisition date and the amount of fair value can be reasonably determined.

ASC 805-10 was effective for the Company on July 1, 2009.

The following table presents the underwriting results and ratios for the Insurance segment for the periods indicated.

Gross written premiums increased by 10.0% to $1,073.1 million in 2012 compared to $975.6 million in 2011.

This increase was primarily driven by crop and primary A&H medical stop loss business, partially offset by the termination and runoff of several large casualty programs.

Net written premiums increased 3.9% to $852.1 million in 2012 compared to $820.5 million in 2011.

The lower increase in net written premiums in comparison to gross written premiums is primarily attributable to a higher level of reinsurance employed for the crop business.

Premiums earned increased 3.8% to $852.4 million in 2012 compared to $821.2 million in 2011.

The change in premiums earned is relatively consistent with the increase in net written premiums.

Gross written premiums increased by 12.7% to $975.6 million in 2011 compared to $865.4 million in 2010.

This was due to strategic portfolio changes with growth in short-tail business, primarily driven by the acquisition of Heartland, which provided $169.6 million of new crop insurance premium in 2011 and $54.0 million growth in A&H primary business, partially offset by the reduction of a large casualty program.

Net written premiums increased 32.3% to $820.5 million in 2011 compared to $620.3 million for the same period in 2010 due to higher gross premiums and reduced levels of ceded reinsurance, primarily due to the reduction of the large casualty program.

Premiums earned increased 28.1% to $821.2 million in 2011 compared to $641.1 million in 2010.

The change in premiums earned is relatively consistent with the increase in net written premiums.


Question: What's the sum of allCash and cash equivalents and Unsettled fund receivables that are positive in 2011? (in million)

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    cash_and_cash_equivalents = 727.4
    unsettled_fund_receivables = 444.4

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = cash_and_cash_equivalents + unsettled_fund_receivables

    return answer

PART I ITEM 1.  BUSINESS Our Company Founded in 1886, American Water Works Company, Inc. , (the “Company,” “American Water” or “AWW”) is a Delaware holding company.

American Water is the most geographically diversified, as well as the largest publicly-traded, United States water and wastewater utility company, as measured by both operating revenues and population served.

As a holding company, we conduct substantially all of our business operations through our subsidiaries.

Our approximately 6,400 employees provide an estimated 15 million people with drinking water, wastewater and/or other water-related services in 47 states and one Canadian province.

Operating Segments We report our results of operations in two operating segments: the Regulated Businesses and the MarketBased Operations.

Additional information with respect to our operating segment results is included in the section entitled “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and Note 18 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Regulated Businesses Our primary business involves the ownership of subsidiaries that provide water and wastewater utility services to residential, commercial, industrial and other customers, including sale for resale and public authority customers.

We report the results of this business in our Regulated Businesses segment.

Our subsidiaries that provide these services are generally subject to economic regulation by certain state commissions or other entities engaged in economic regulation, hereafter referred to as Public Utility Commissions, or “PUCs,” of the states in which we operate.

The federal and state governments also regulate environmental, health and safety, and water quality matters.

Our Regulated Businesses segment operating revenues were $2,674.3 million for 2014, $2,539.9 for 2013, $2,564.4 million for 2012, accounting for 88.8%, 90.1% and 89.9%, respectively, of total operating revenues for the same periods.

The following table sets forth our Regulated Businesses operating revenues, number of customers and an estimate of population served as of December 31, 2014:

(a) Includes Illinois-American Water Company, which we refer to as ILAWC and American Lake Water Company, also a regulated subsidiary in Illinois.

The company’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity in Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, contains a detailed analysis of the changes in balance sheet equity line items.

The following table presents a comparative analysis of significant detailed balance sheet assets and liabilities:

Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents decreased by $13.1 million from $740.5 million at December 31, 2010 to $727.4 million at December 31, 2011.

See “Cash Flows” in the following section within this Management's Discussion and Analysis for additional discussion regarding the movements in cash flows during the periods.

See Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data - Note 1, “Accounting Policies - Cash and Cash Equivalents,” regarding requirements to mandate the retention of liquid resources in certain jurisdictions.

Unsettled fund receivables and payables Unsettled fund receivables decreased by $69.0 million from $513.4 million at December 31, 2010 to $444.4 million at December 31, 2011, due primarily to lower transaction activity between funds and investors in late December 2011 when compared to late December 2010 in our offshore funds.

In the company's capacity as sponsor of UITs, the company records receivables from brokers, dealers, and clearing organizations for unsettled sell trades of securities and UITs in addition to receivables from customers for unsettled sell trades of UITs.

In our U. K.  and offshore activities, unsettled fund receivables are created by the normal settlement periods on transactions initiated by certain clients.

The presentation of the unsettled fund receivables and substantially offsetting payables ($439.6 million at December 31, 2011 down from $504.8 million at December 31, 2010 ) at trade date reflects the legal relationship between the underlying investor and the company.

Investments (current and non-current) As of December 31, 2011 we had $484.5 million in investments, of which $283.7 million were current investments and $200.8 million were non-current investments.

Included in current investments are $63.5 million of seed money investments in affiliated funds used to seed funds as we launch new products, and $184.4 million of investments related to assets held for deferred compensation plans, which are also held primarily in affiliated funds.

Seed investments decreased by $35.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2011, due primarily to market decreases and net disposals of seed money investments.

Investments held to hedge deferred compensation awards increased by $18.9 million during the year, primarily due to additional investments in affiliated funds to hedge economically new employee plan awards.

Included in non-current investments are $193.1 million in equity method investments in our Chinese joint ventures and in certain of the company’s private equity partnerships, real estate partnerships and other investments (December 31, 2010: $156.9 million).

The increase of $36.2 million in equity method investments includes an increase of $32.1 million in partnership investments due to a $40.2 million co-investment in new European and Asian real estate funds, other capital calls and valuation improvements offset by distributions and capital returns during the period.

The value of the joint venture investments and other non-controlling equity method investments increased by $4.1 million during the year as a result of current year earnings of $17.2 million, foreign exchange rate movements which added $2.8 million to the value and capital injections of $1.6 million, offset by annual dividends paid of $17.5 million to the company.

Provisional Amounts Deferred tax assets and liabilities: The company remeasured certain deferred tax assets and liabilities based on the tax rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, typically 21% under the 2017 Tax Act.

However, the company is still analyzing certain aspects of the legislation and refining its calculations.

Any updates or changes could affect the measurement of these balances or give rise to new deferred tax amounts.

The provisional income tax beneffit recorded related to the remeasurement of the deferred tax balance was $130.7 million at December 31, 2017.

Foreign tax effects: The one-time transition tax is based on the total post-1986 earnings and profits (E&P) that were previously deferred from U. S.  income taxes.

The company does not anticipate incurring an income tax liability and therefore no provision has been made.

However, the company has not completed its analysis as to the existence of foreign subsidiaries it may be deemed to indirectly own (or partially own) through attribution or by way of its investment in various fund products which in turn may hold ownership in foreign subsidiaries where the transition tax may apply.

Therefore, our determination as to the need for a net transition tax liability may change once this analysis has been completed.

At December 31, 2017 the company had tax loss carryforwards accumulated in certain taxing jurisdictions in the aggregate of $413.3 million (2016: $243.8 million), approximately $35.2 million of which will expire between 2018 and 2020, $15.2 million of which will expire after 2020, with the remaining $362.9 million having an indefinite life.

The increase in tax loss carryforwards from 2016 to 2017 of $169.5 million results from the acquisition of the European ETF business ($160.1 million) and the impact of foreign exchange translation on non-U.

S.  dollar denominated losses ($23.1 million) with the remainder of the movement due to additional losses not recognized ($15.8 million), offset with loss expiration and utilization ($30.0 million).

A valuation allowance has been recorded against the deferred tax assets related to these losses where a history of losses in the respective tax jurisdiction makes it unlikely that the deferred tax asset will be realized.

A reconciliation between the statutory rate and the effective tax rate on income from operations for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 is as follows:

||2017|2016|2015|
|Statutory Rate|35.0%|35.0%|35.0%|
|Foreign jurisdiction statutory income tax rates|-9.6%|-8.1%|-9.2%|
|State taxes, net of federal tax effect|2.2%|1.6%|1.6%|
|Impact of the 2017 Tax Act|-9.3%|—%|—%|
|Change in valuation allowance for unrecognized tax losses|0.4%|-0.4%|-0.1%|
|Share Based Compensation|-0.3%|—%|—%|
|Other|1.2%|0.3%|1.8%|
|(Gains)/losses attributable to noncontrolling interests|-0.8%|-0.4%|0.1%|
|Effective tax rate per Consolidated Statements of Income|18.8%|28.0%|29.2%|

The company's subsidiaries operate in severalt taxing jurisdictions around the world, each with its own statutory income tax rate.

As a result, the blended average statutory tax rate will vary from year to year depending on the mix of the profits and losses of the company's subsidiaries.

The majority of our profits are earned in the U. S.  and the U. K.  The enacted U. K.  statutory tax rate, for U. S.  GAAP purposes, was 19% as of December 31, 2017.

As of December 31, 2017, the U. S.  federal statutory tax rate was 35%.

The 2017 Tax Act enacted for U. S.  GAAP purposes on December 22, 2017 reduces the U. S.  federal statutory tax rate to 21% from January 1, 2018.

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis The Grand Gulf recovery variance is primarily due to increased recovery of higher costs resulting from the Grand Gulf uprate.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effects of more favorable weather on residential sales and an increase in industrial sales primarily due to growth in the refining segment.

The fuel recovery variance is primarily due to: ?

the deferral of increased capacity costs that will be recovered through fuel adjustment clauses; ?

the expiration of the Evangeline gas contract on January 1, 2013; and ?

an adjustment to deferred fuel costs recorded in the third quarter 2012 in accordance with a rate order from the PUCT issued in September 2012.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of this PUCT order issued in Entergy Texas's 2011 rate case.

The MISO deferral variance is primarily due to the deferral in April 2013, as approved by the APSC, of costs incurred since March 2010 related to the transition and implementation of joining the MISO RTO.

The decommissioning trusts variance is primarily due to lower regulatory credits resulting from higher realized income on decommissioning trust fund investments.

There is no effect on net income as the credits are offset by interest and investment income.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2013 to 2012.

||Amount (In Millions)|
|2012 net revenue|$1,854|
|Mark-to-market|-58|
|Nuclear volume|-24|
|Nuclear fuel expenses|-20|
|Nuclear realized price changes|58|
|Other|-8|
|2013 net revenue|$1,802|

As shown in the table above, net revenue for Entergy Wholesale Commodities decreased by approximately $52 million in 2013 primarily due to: ?

the effect of rising forward power prices on electricity derivative instruments that are not designated as hedges, including additional financial power sales conducted in the fourth quarter 2013 to offset the planned exercise of in-the-money protective call options and to lock in margins.

These additional sales did not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, and increases in forward prices after those sales were made accounted for the majority of the negative mark-to-market variance.

It is expected that the underlying transactions will result in earnings in first quarter 2014 as these positions settle.

See Note 16 to the financial statements for discussion of derivative instruments; ?

the decrease in net revenue compared to prior year resulting from the exercise of resupply options provided for in purchase power agreements where Entergy Wholesale Commodities may elect to supply power from another source when the plant is not running.

Amounts related to the exercise of resupply options are included in the GWh billed in the table below; and

bonds, the actual average life of our investments can not be known at the time of the investment.

We do know that the average life will not be less than the average life to next call and will not exceed the average life to maturity.

Data for both of these average life measures is provided in the above chart.

During 2005-2007, especially during 2005, there have been periods when yields available on acceptable-quality long-term non-callable securities did not meet our objectives.

During such periods, we have invested in shorter-term securities.

Some of these periods were characterized by relatively flat or inverted yield curves.

During such periods, we did not have to give up much yield to invest in shorter-term securities, and we took on less credit risk than had we invested longer-term.

Prior to 2007, we generally did not invest in securities with maturity dates more than 30 years after the acquisition date.

During 2007, we invested some funds in hybrid securities (bonds, trust preferred securities and redeemable preferred stocks) with very long scheduled maturity dates, often exceeding 50 years.

In virtually all cases, such hybrid securities are callable many years prior to the scheduled maturity date.

As shown in the chart above, the effective annual yield and average life to maturity on funds invested during 2005 is significantly lower than that of funds invested during 2006 and 2007.

This difference is reflective of the fact that, consistent with the investment environment and strategy described above, we invested relatively more funds in lower yielding, shorter-term investments in 2005 than we did in 2006- 2007.

Due primarily to our investments in hybrid securities as described above, the average life of funds invested during 2007 (to both next call and maturity) is significantly higher than that of investments during 2005-2006.

Given the long-term fixed-rate characteristics of our policy liabilities, we believe that investments with average lives in excess of 20 years are appropriate.

New cash flow available to us for investment was affected by issuer calls as a result of the lowinterest environment experienced during the past three years.

Issuers are more likely to call bonds when rates are low because they often can refinance them at a lower cost.

Calls increase funds available for investment, but they can negatively affect portfolio yield if they cause us to replace higher-yielding bonds with those available at lower prevailing yields.

Issuer calls were $848 million in 2007, $229 million in 2006, and $226 million in 2005.

As long as we continue our current investment strategy and the average yield on new investments is less than the average yield of the portfolio and of assets disposed of, the average yield on fixed maturity assets in the portfolio should decline.

Because of the significant investable cash flow generated from investments and operations, Torchmark will benefit if yield rates available on new investments increase.

Because Torchmark has recently invested almost exclusively in fixed-maturity securities, the relative percentage of our assets invested in various types of investments varies from industry norms.


Question: In the section with largest amount of Fixed maturities, what's the sum of Policy loans and Swaps ? (in million)

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    policy_loans = 10751
    swaps = 525

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = policy_loans - swaps

    return answer

The Company will continue to recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component of its income tax provision.

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has $9,409 and $13,890, respectively, accrued for the payment of interest and penalties, excluding the federal tax benefit of interest deductions where applicable.

During the years ending December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company accrued interest and penalties through the consolidated statements of operations of $(3,579), $74 and $(1,585), respectively.

The Company believes that its unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by $14,746 within the next twelve months.

The Company has effectively settled all Federal income tax matters related to years prior to 2010.

Various other state and foreign income tax returns are open to examination for various years.

The Company believes that its unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by $14,746 within the next twelve months.

The Company has effectively settled all Federal income tax matters related to years prior to 2010.

Various other state and foreign income tax returns are open to examination for various years.

In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year.

The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority¡¯s position.

The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits.

However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company¡¯s taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory.

However, on December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest.

The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments.

In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company¡¯s protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Instance in Bruges.

In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest.

The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority¡¯s position for each of the years assessed.

In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest.

All 4 additional years have been brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014.

In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgium tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years).

The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense.

Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given quarter or year.

NOTE 16 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is obligated under various operating leases for office and manufacturing space, machinery, and equipment.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable capital and operating leases (with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year) as of December 31:

Rental expense under operating leases was $114,529, $116,541 and $97,587 in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The Company had approximately $37,381 and $47,713 in standby letters of credit for various insurance contracts and commitments to foreign vendors as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively that expire within two years.

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business.

Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U. S.  federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company¡¯s carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U. S.  antitrust laws.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers.

All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U. S.  District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No.1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present.

The direct purchaser class currently claims damages from all of the defendants named in the lawsuit of up to approximately $867,400 which amount will be reduced by the value of claims made by plaintiffs that opt out of the class.

Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws.

The amount of damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs.

Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations.

Properties.3M’s general offices, corporate research laboratories, and certain division laboratories are located in St.  Paul, Minnesota.

In the United States, 3M has nine sales offices in eight states and operates 74 manufacturing facilities in 27 states.

Internationally, 3M has 148 sales offices.

The Company operates 93 manufacturing and converting facilities in 32 countries outside the United States.3M owns substantially all of its physical properties.3M’s physical facilities are highly suitable for the purposes for which they were designed.

Because 3M is a global enterprise characterized by substantial intersegment cooperation, properties are often used by multiple business segments.

Discussion of legal matters is incorporated by reference from Part II, Item 8, Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies,” of this document, and should be considered an integral part of Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

None in the quarter ended December 31, 2007.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Equity compensation plans’ information is incorporated by reference from Part III, Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters,” of this document, and should be considered an integral part of Item 5.

At January 31, 2008, there were approximately 121,302 shareholders of record.3M’s stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.  (NYSE), the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. , and the SWX Swiss Exchange.

Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $.48 per share for each quarter of 2007, and $.46 per share for each quarter of 2006.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities Repurchases of common stock are made to support the Company’s stock-based employee compensation plans and for other corporate purposes.

On February 13, 2006, the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of $2.0 billion of the Company’s common stock between February 13, 2006 and February 28, 2007.

In August 2006, 3M’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of an additional $1.0 billion in share repurchases, raising the total authorization to $3.0 billion for the period from February 13, 2006 to February 28, 2007.

In February 2007, 3M’s Board of Directors authorized a twoyear share repurchase of up to $7.0 billion for the period from February 12, 2007 to February 28, 2009.

he fair value of a financial instrument to changes in interest rates.

Convexity measures the rate of change of duration with respect to changes in interest rates.

We seek to manage our interest rate exposure by legal entity by matching the relative sensitivity of asset and liability values to interest rate changes, or controlling “duration mismatch” of assets and liabilities.

We have target duration mismatch constraints for each entity.

In certain markets, primarily outside the U. S. , capital market limitations that hinder our ability to closely approximate the duration of some of our liabilities are considered in setting the constraint limits.

As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, the difference between the pre-tax duration of assets and the target duration of liabilities in our duration managed portfolios was within our constraint limits.

We consider risk-based capital implications in our asset/liability management strategies.

We also perform portfolio stress testing as part of our U. S.  regulatory cash flow testing for major product lines that are subject to risk from changes in interest rates.

In this testing, we evaluate the impact of altering our interest-sensitive assumptions under various moderately adverse interest rate environments.

These interest-sensitive assumptions relate to the timing and amount of redemptions and prepayments of fixed-income securities and lapses and surrenders of insurance products and the potential impact of any guaranteed minimum interest rates.

We evaluate any shortfalls that this cash flow testing reveals to determine if we need to increase statutory reserves or adjust portfolio management strategies.

Market Risk Related to Interest Rates Our “other than trading” assets that subject us to interest rate risk include primarily fixed maturity securities, commercial loans and policy loans.

In the aggregate, the carrying value of these assets represented 76% of our consolidated assets, other than assets that we held in separate accounts, as of December 31, 2007 and 77% as of December 31, 2006.

With respect to “other than trading” liabilities, we are exposed to interest rate risk through policyholder account balances relating to interest-sensitive life insurance, annuity and other investment-type contracts, collectively referred to as investment contracts, and through outstanding short-term and long-term debt.

We assess interest rate sensitivity for “other than trading” financial assets, financial liabilities and derivatives using hypothetical test scenarios that assume either upward or downward 100 basis point parallel shifts in the yield curve from prevailing interest rates.

The following tables set forth the net estimated potential loss in fair value from a hypothetical 100 basis point upward shift as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, because this scenario results in the greatest net exposure to interest rate risk of the hypothetical scenarios tested at those dates.

While the test scenario is for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect our expectations regarding future interest rates or the performance of fixed-income markets, it is a near-term, reasonably possible hypothetical change that illustrates the potential impact of such events.

These test scenarios do not measure the changes in value that could result from non-parallel shifts in the yield curve, which we would expect to produce different changes in discount rates for different maturities.

As a result, the actual loss in fair value from a 100 basis point change in interest rates could be different from that indicated by these calculations.

||As of December 31, 2007|
|| Notional  Amount of Derivatives|Fair Value|Hypothetical Fair Value After + 100 Basis Point Parallel Yield Curve Shift|Hypothetical Change in Fair Value|
||(in millions)|
|Financial assets with interest rate risk:|||||
|Fixed maturities||$179,940|$169,374|$-10,566|
|Commercial loans||28,323|27,123|-1,200|
|Mortgage bank-loan inventory-1||2,298|2,248|-50|
|Policy loans||10,751|10,055|-696|
|Derivatives:|||||
|Swaps|$59,266|-525|-944|-419|
|Futures|4,812|-7|19|26|
|Options|4,759|627|557|-70|
|Forwards|8,851|72|71|-1|
|Variable Annuity Living Benefit Feature Embedded Derivatives||-168|17|185|
|Financial liabilities with interest rate risk:|||||
|Short-term and long-term debt||-29,737|-28,597|1,140|
|Investment contracts||-66,574|-65,330|1,244|
|Bank customer liabilities||-1,334|-1,329|5|
|Net estimated potential loss||||$-10,402|

respect to foreign exchange) and the acquired Currenex business (with respect to brokerage and other) for a full year.

Brokerage and other trading revenue increased 10% from 2007 to 2008, due to higher revenues from electronic trading, both from the acquired Currenex business and from our Global Link product, as well as an increase in brokerage revenue, principally transition management and equity trading.

Securities finance revenue for 2008 was up 81% compared to 2007, primarily as a result of wider credit spreads across all lending programs.

Spreads benefited from the Federal Reserve’s aggregate 400-basis-point reduction in the federal funds rate during 2008, as well as from the continued disruption of the global fixedincome securities markets.

The increases were offset partially by a decline in lending volumes.

The 11% increase in servicing fees was the result of the inclusion of servicing fee revenue from the acquired Investor Financial business for a full year, the impact of new business on 2008 revenue and higher transaction volumes.

Approximately 41% of our servicing fees were derived from non-U.

Management fees decreased 10% from 2007 to 2008, $1.14 billion to $1.03 billion respectively, primarily from the impact of declines in average month-end equity market valuations and performance fees.

Approximately 40% of our management fees were derived from customers outside the U. S.  in 2008, down from 41% for 2007.

Assets under management decreased to $1.44 trillion at December 31, 2008, down $535 billion from $1.98 trillion a year earlier, as we experienced a net loss of business and, more significantly, market depreciation.

The increase in net interest revenue was the result of several favorable trends.

Interest-earning assets and related net interest revenue from the acquired Investors Financial business and widening spreads on fixed-rate and tax-exempt investment securities were the primary reasons for the growth.

In addition, transaction deposit volume increased, particularly with respect to non-U.


Question: What is the sum of Elba Express and FEP in MilesofPipeline?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    elba_express = 200
    fep = 185

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = elba_express + fep

    return answer

Maturities of Debt The scheduled maturities of the outstanding debt balances, excluding debt fair value adjustments as of December 31, 2014, are summarized as follows (in millions):

Interest Rates, Interest Rate Swaps and Contingent Debt The weighted average interest rate on all of our borrowings was 5.02% during 2014 and 5.08% during 2013.

Information on our interest rate swaps is contained in Note 13.

For information about our contingent debt agreements, see Note 12.

Subsequent Event Subsequent to December 31, 2014, additional EP Trust I Preferred Securities were converted, primarily consisting of 969,117 EP Trust I Preferred Securities converted on January 14, 2015, into (i) 697,473 of our Class P common stock; (ii) approximately $24 million in cash; and (iii) 1,066,028 in warrants.9.

Share-based Compensation and Employee Benefits Share-based Compensation Kinder Morgan, Inc.  Class P Shares Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors We have a Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, in which our eligible non-employee directors participate.

The plan recognizes that the compensation paid to each eligible non-employee director is fixed by our board, generally annually, and that the compensation is payable in cash.

Pursuant to the plan, in lieu of receiving some or all of the cash compensation, each eligible non-employee director may elect to receive shares of Class P common stock.

Each election will be generally at or around the first board meeting in January of each calendar year and will be effective for the entire calendar year.

An eligible director may make a new election each calendar year.

The total number of shares of Class P common stock authorized under the plan is 250,000.

During 2014, 2013 and 2012, we made restricted Class P common stock grants to our non-employee directors of 6,210, 5,710 and 5,520, respectively.

These grants were valued at time of issuance at $220,000, $210,000 and $185,000, respectively.

All of the restricted stock grants made to non-employee directors vest during a six-month period.

in direct competition with other CO2 pipelines.

We also compete with other interest owners in the McElmo Dome unit and the Bravo Dome unit for transportation of CO2 to the Denver City, Texas market area.

Terminals Our Terminals segment includes the operations of our petroleum, chemical, ethanol and other liquids terminal facilities (other than those included in the Products Pipelines segment) and all of our coal, petroleum coke, fertilizer, steel, ores and other dry-bulk material services facilities, including all transload, engineering, conveying and other in-plant services.

Our terminals are located throughout the U. S.  and in portions of Canada.

We believe the location of our facilities and our ability to provide flexibility to customers help attract new and retain existing customers at our terminals and provide us opportunities for expansion.

We often classify our terminal operations based on the handling of either liquids or dry-bulk material products.

In addition, we have Jones Act qualified product tankers that provide marine transportation of crude oil, condensate and refined products in the U. S.  The following summarizes our Terminals segment assets, as of December 31, 2014:

||Number|Capacity(MMBbl)|
|Liquids terminals|39|78.0|
|Bulk terminals|78|n/a|
|Materials Services locations|8|n/a|
|Jones Act qualified tankers|7|2.3|

Competition We are one of the largest independent operators of liquids terminals in the U.

S, based on barrels of liquids terminaling capacity.

Our liquids terminals compete with other publicly or privately held independent liquids terminals, and terminals owned by oil, chemical and pipeline companies.

Our bulk terminals compete with numerous independent terminal operators, terminals owned by producers and distributors of bulk commodities, stevedoring companies and other industrial companies opting not to outsource terminal services.

In some locations, competitors are smaller, independent operators with lower cost structures.

Our rail transloading (material services) operations compete with a variety of single- or multi-site transload, warehouse and terminal operators across the U. S.  Our Jones Act qualified product tankers compete with other Jones Act qualified vessel fleets.

||OwnershipInterest %|MilesofPipeline|Design (Bcf/d) [Storage (Bcf)] Capacity|Supply and Market Region|
|Elba Express|100|200|0.95|Georgia; connects to SNG (Georgia), Transco (Georgia/South Carolina), SLNG (Georgia) and CGT (Georgia).|
|FEP|50|185|2.00|Arkansas to Mississippi; connects to NGPL, Trunkline Gas Company, Texas Gas Transmission, and ANR Pipeline Company|
|KMLP|100|135|2.20|sources gas from Cheniere Sabine Pass LNG terminal to interconnects with Columbia Gulf, ANR and various other pipelines|
|Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC|35|61|0.20|near Tucson, Arizona, to the U.S.-Mexico border near Sasabe, Arizona; connects to EPNG and via a new international border crossing with a new natural gas pipeline in Mexico|
|Young Gas Storage|48|16|[6]|Morgan County, Colorado, capacity is committed to CIG and Colorado Springs Utilities.|
|Keystone Gas Storage|100|12|[6]|located in the Permian Basin and near the WAHA natural gas trading hub in West Texas.|
|Gulf LNG Holdings|50|5|[6.6]|near Pascagoula, Mississippi; connects to four interstate pipelines and natural gas processing plant.|
|Bear Creek Storage|100|—|[59]|located in Louisiana; provides storage capacity to SNG and TGP.|
|SLNG|100|—|[11.5]|Georgia; connects to Elba Express, SNG and CGT|
|ELC|100|—|0.35|Georgia; not in service until 2018|
|Midstream assets||||
|KM Texas andTejas pipelines|100|5,600|6.20[124]|Texas Gulf Coast.|
|Mier-Monterreypipeline|100|87|0.65|Starr County, Texas to Monterrey, Mexico; connects to Pemex NG Transportation system and a 1,000-megawatt power plant|
|KM North Texaspipeline|100|82|0.33|interconnect from NGPL; connects to 1,750-megawatt Forney, Texas, power plant and a 1,000-megawatt Paris, Texas, power plant|
|Oklahoma||||
|Southern Dome|73|—|0.03|propane refrigeration plant in the southern portion of Oklahoma county|
|Oklahoma System|100|3,600|0.38|Hunton Dewatering, Woodford Shale, and Mississippi Lime|
|South Texas||||
|Webb/Duval gas gathering system|63|145|0.15|South Texas|
|South Texas System|100|1,300|1.88|Eagle Ford shale formation, Woodbine and Eaglebine (Texas)|
|EagleHawk|25|860|1.20|South Texas, Eagle Ford shale formation|
|KM Altamont|100|1,200|0.08|Utah, Uinta Basin|
|Red Cedar|49|740|0.70|La Plata County, Colorado, Ignacio Blanco Field|
|Rocky Mountain||||
|Fort Union|37|310|1.25|Powder River Basin (Wyoming)|
|Bighorn|51|290|0.60|Powder River Basin (Wyoming)|
|KinderHawk|100|500|2.00|Northwest Louisiana, Haynesville and Bossier shale formations|
|North Texas|100|400|0.14|North Barnett Shale Combo|
|Endeavor|40|100|0.12|East Texas, Cotton Valley Sands and Haynesville/ Bossier Shale horizontal well developments|
|Camino Real - Gas|100|70|0.15|South Texas, Eagle Ford shale formation|
|KM Treating|100|—|—|Odessa, Texas, other locations in Tyler and Victoria, Texas|

||December 31,|
||2015|2014|
|Long-term assets, excluding goodwill and other intangibles|||
|U.S.|$51,679|$49,992|
|Canada|2,193|2,268|
|Mexico|67|81|
|Total consolidated long-lived assets|$53,939|$52,341|

Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company.

Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company.

When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time.

If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range.

We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers the most recent of which was filed in late 2015 with the FERC (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates.

In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).

In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases.

If the shippers are successful in proving these claims or other of their claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward.

These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts.

The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates.

With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $40 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $160 million in refunds.

Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests.

However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of several recent FERC decisions in SFPP cases, as applicable, to pending cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers.

EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”).

With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015.

FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case.

EPNG has sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A.

With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528) on October 17, 2013.

EPNG sought rehearing on certain issues in Opinion 528.

As required by Opinion 528, EPNG filed revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinion 528.

The FERC also required an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to conduct an additional hearing concerning one of the issues in Opinion 528.

On September 17, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding certain shippers qualify for lower rates under a prior settlement.

EPNG has sought FERC review of the ALJ decision.

EPNG believes it has an appropriate reserve, which is classified as a current liability, related to the findings in Opinions 517-A and 528 for both rate cases.

in direct competition with other CO2 pipelines.

Terminals Our Terminals segment includes the operations of our refined petroleum product, crude oil, chemical, ethanol and other liquid terminal facilities (other than those included in the Products Pipelines segment) and all of our coal, petroleum coke, fertilizer, steel, ores and other dry-bulk terminal facilities.

We believe the location of our facilities and our ability to provide flexibility to customers help attract new and retain existing customers at our terminals and provide expansion opportunities.

In addition, Terminals’ marine operations include Jones Act qualified product tankers that provide marine transportation of crude oil, condensate a