MARATHON OIL CORPORATION Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Testing goodwill for impairment is a two step process.
The first step of the goodwill impairment test, used to identify potential impairment, compares the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill.
If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is not considered to be impaired, thus the second step of the impairment test is unnecessary.
If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test is performed to measure the amount of impairment, if any.
Our fourth quarter 2008 fair value estimate for the OSM reporting unit was less than the carrying amount.
The second step of the goodwill impairment test, used to measure the amount of impairment loss, compares the implied fair value of reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.
The implied fair value of goodwill shall be determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill recognized in a business combination.
This requires a hypothetical purchase price to be established as if the fair value of the reporting unit was the current price paid to acquire the reporting unit.
To determine what the implied fair value of the recorded goodwill would be, the fair value for that reporting unit is hypothetically allocated to all assets and liabilities within that reporting unit.
If the carrying amount of reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is required to be recognized in an amount equal to that excess.
The second step in the goodwill impairment process indicated there was no remaining implied fair value of goodwill as of December 31, 2008, for the OSM reporting unit.
This was largely due to the recent disruption in the credit and equity markets, which impacts discount rate assumptions, a change in the timing of expected production and the decline in commodity prices.
As a result, a $1,412 million impairment of goodwill for the OSM reporting unit was recorded and reported on a separate line of our consolidated statement of income for 2008.
While the fair values of our other reporting units exceed the carrying value at the present time, should market conditions deteriorate or commodity prices decline, the goodwill of our other reporting units could require impairment.
The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, were as follows
## Table 0 ##
16.
Fair Value Measurements Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
There are three approaches for measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities: the market approach, the income approach and the cost approach, each of which includes multiple valuation techniques.
The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities.
The income approach uses valuation techniques to measure fair value by converting future amounts, such as cash flows or earnings, into a single present value amount using current market expectations about those future amounts.
The cost approach is based on the amount that would currently be required to replace the service capacity of an asset.
This is often referred to as current replacement cost.
MARATHON OIL CORPORATION Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Restricted stock awards The following is a summary of restricted stock award activity.
## Table 1 ##
The vesting date fair value of restricted stock awards which vested during 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $24 million, $38 million and $29 million.
The weighted average grant date fair value of restricted stock awards was $44.89, $47.72, and $39.87 for awards unvested at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
As of December 31, 2009, there was $43 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to restricted stock awards which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.6 years.
Stock-based performance awards All stock-based performance awards have either vested or been forfeited.
The vesting date fair value of stockbased performance awards which vested during 2007 was $38.24.
Stockholders’ Equity In each year, 2009 and 2008, we issued 2 million in common stock upon the redemption of the Exchangeable Shares described below in addition to treasury shares issued for employee stock-based awards.
The Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to $5 billion of Marathon common stock.
Purchases under the program may be in either open market transactions, including block purchases, or in privately negotiated transactions.
We will use cash on hand, cash generated from operations, proceeds from potential asset sales or cash from available borrowings to acquire shares.
This program may be changed based upon our financial condition or changes in market conditions and is subject to termination prior to completion.
The repurchase program does not include specific price targets or timetables.
As of December 31, 2009, we have acquired 66 million common shares at a cost of $2,922 million under the program.
No shares have been acquired since August 2008.
Securities exchangeable into Marathon common stock – As discussed in Note 6, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Western on October 18, 2007.
The Western shareholders who were Canadian residents received, at their election, cash, Marathon common stock, securities exchangeable into Marathon common stock (the “Exchangeable Shares”) or a combination thereof.
The Western shareholders elected to receive 5 million Exchangeable Shares as part of the acquisition consideration.
The Exchangeable Shares are shares of an indirect Canadian subsidiary of Marathon and, at the acquisition date, were exchangeable on a one-for-one basis into Marathon common stock.
Subsequent to the acquisition, the exchange ratio is adjusted to reflect cash dividends, if any, paid on Marathon common stock and cash dividends, if any, paid on the Exchangeable Shares.
The exchange ratio at December 31, 2009, was 1.06109 common shares for each Exchangeable Share.
The Exchangeable Shares are exchangeable at the option of the holder at any time and are automatically redeemable on October 18, 2011.
Holders of Exchangeable Shares are entitled to instruct a trustee to vote (or obtain a proxy from the trustee to vote directly) on all matters submitted to the holders of Marathon common stock.
The number of votes to which each holder is entitled is equal to the whole number of shares of Marathon common stock into which such holder’s Exchangeable Shares would be exchangeable based on the exchange ratio in effect on the record date for the vote.
The voting right is attached to voting preferred shares of Marathon that were issued to a trustee in an amount
MARATHON OIL CORPORATION Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Of the $446 million present value of net minimum capital lease payments, $53 million was related to obligations assumed by United States Steel under the Financial Matters Agreement.
Operating lease rental expense was:
## Table 2 ##
(a) Excludes $3 million, $5 million and $8 million paid by United States Steel in 2009, 2008 and 2007 on assumed leases.26.
Commitments and Contingencies We are the subject of, or party to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions, contingencies and commitments involving a variety of matters, including laws and regulations relating to the environment.
Certain of these matters are discussed below.
The ultimate resolution of these contingencies could, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our consolidated financial statements.
However, management believes that we will remain a viable and competitive enterprise even though it is possible that these contingencies could be resolved unfavorably.
Environmental matters – We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment.
These laws generally provide for control of pollutants released into the environment and require responsible parties to undertake remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites.
Penalties may be imposed for noncompliance.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, accrued liabilities for remediation totaled $116 million and $111 million.
It is not presently possible to estimate the ultimate amount of all remediation costs that might be incurred or the penalties that may be imposed.
Receivables for recoverable costs from certain states, under programs to assist companies in clean-up efforts related to underground storage tanks at retail marketing outlets, were $59 and $60 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Legal cases – We, along with other refining companies, settled a number of lawsuits pertaining to methyl tertiary-butyl ether (“MTBE”) in 2008.
Presently, we are a defendant, along with other refining companies, in 27 cases arising in four states alleging damages for MTBE contamination.
Like the cases that we settled in 2008, 12 of the remaining cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the Southern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.
The other 15 cases are in New York state courts (Nassau and Suffolk Counties).
Plaintiffs in 26 of the 27 cases allege damages to water supply wells from contamination of groundwater by MTBE, similar to the damages claimed in the cases settled in 2008.
In the remaining case, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is seeking the cost of remediating MTBE contamination and natural resources damages allegedly resulting from contamination of groundwater by MTBE.
We are vigorously defending these cases.
We have engaged in settlement discussions related to the majority of these cases.
We do not expect our share of liability for these cases to significantly impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
We voluntarily discontinued producing MTBE in 2002.
We are currently a party to one qui tam case, which alleges that Marathon and other defendants violated the False Claims Act with respect to the reporting and payment of royalties on natural gas and natural gas liquids for federal and Indian leases.
A qui tam action is an action in which the relator files suit on behalf of himself as well as the federal government.
The case currently pending is U. S.  ex rel Harrold E.  Wright v.  Agip Petroleum Co.  et al.
It is primarily a gas valuation case.
Marathon has reached a settlement with the Relator and the DOJ which will be finalized after the Indian Tribes review and approve the settlement terms.
Such settlement is not expected to significantly impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Guarantees – We have provided certain guarantees, direct and indirect, of the indebtedness of other companies.
Under the terms of most of these guarantee arrangements, we would be required to perform should the guaranteed party fail to fulfill its obligations under the specified arrangements.
In addition to these financial guarantees, we also have various performance guarantees related to specific agreements.
Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Producing Activities (Unaudited) Changes in the Standardized Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash Flows
## Table 3 ##
Segment Results: 2008 compared to 2007 Segment income for 2008 and 2007 is summarized and reconciled to net income in the following table.

<table><tr><td><i>(In millions)</i></td><td>E&P</td><td>OSM</td><td>RM&T</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td> 2008</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beginning balance</td><td>$590</td><td>$1,437</td><td>$872</td><td>$2,899</td></tr><tr><td>Impairment</td><td>-</td><td>-1,412</td><td>-</td><td>-1,412</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred tax adjustments</td><td>-17</td><td>-9</td><td>-</td><td>-26</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase price adjustments</td><td>-</td><td>-16</td><td>-</td><td>-16</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent consideration adjustment</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Dispositions</td><td>-5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>Ending balance</td><td>568</td><td>-</td><td>879</td><td>1,447</td></tr><tr><td> 2009</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beginning balance, gross</td><td>568</td><td>1,412</td><td>879</td><td>2,859</td></tr><tr><td>Less: accumulated impairments</td><td>-</td><td>-1,412</td><td>-</td><td>-1,412</td></tr><tr><td>Beginning balance, net</td><td>568</td><td>-</td><td>879</td><td>1,447</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred tax adjustments</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent consideration adjustment</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Dispositions</td><td>-31</td><td>-</td><td>-2</td><td>-33</td></tr><tr><td>Ending balance, net</td><td>$537</td><td>$-</td><td>$885</td><td>$1,422</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Awards</td><td>Weighted-AverageGrant DateFair Value</td></tr><tr><td>Unvested at December 31, 2008</td><td>2,049,255</td><td>$47.72</td></tr><tr><td>Granted</td><td>251,335</td><td>24.74</td></tr><tr><td>Vested</td><td>-762,466</td><td>46.03</td></tr><tr><td>Forfeited</td><td>-96,625</td><td>43.56</td></tr><tr><td>Unvested at December 31, 2009</td><td>1,441,499</td><td>44.89</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>(In millions)</i></td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum rental<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>$238</td><td>$245</td><td>$209</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rental</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Net rental expense</td><td>$257</td><td>$267</td><td>$242</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and transfers of oil and gas produced, net of production andadministrative costs</td><td>$-4,876</td><td>$-6,863</td><td>$-4,613</td></tr><tr><td>Net changes in prices and production and administrative costs related tofuture production</td><td>4,840</td><td>-18,683</td><td>12,344</td></tr><tr><td>Extensions, discoveries and improved recovery, less related costs</td><td>1,399</td><td>663</td><td>1,816</td></tr><tr><td>Development costs incurred during the period</td><td>2,786</td><td>1,774</td><td>1,569</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in estimated future development costs</td><td>-3,641</td><td>-1,436</td><td>-1,706</td></tr><tr><td>Revisions of previous quantity estimates</td><td>5,110</td><td>85</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td>Net changes in purchases and sales of minerals in place</td><td>-159</td><td>-13</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Accretion of discount</td><td>787</td><td>2,724</td><td>1,696</td></tr><tr><td>Net change in income taxes</td><td>-4,441</td><td>12,633</td><td>-6,647</td></tr><tr><td>Timing and other</td><td>-149</td><td>184</td><td>-31</td></tr><tr><td>Net change for the year</td><td>1,656</td><td>-8,932</td><td>4,617</td></tr><tr><td>Beginning of the year</td><td>4,035</td><td>12,967</td><td>8,350</td></tr><tr><td>End of year</td><td>$5,691</td><td>$4,035</td><td>$12,967</td></tr><tr><td>Net change for the year from discontinued operations</td><td>$-</td><td>$284</td><td>$528</td></tr></table>

Question: how much did net rental expense increase from 2007 to 2009?
Answer: 0.06198