NOTE 6 Allowance for Credit Losses The table below summarizes the changes in the allowance for credit losses by portfolio segment for 2012, 2011 and 2010.
## Table 0 ##
Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1
## Table 1 ##
Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1
## Table 2 ##
In 2012, for the PCI loan portfolio, the Corporation recorded a benefit of $103 million in provision for credit losses with a corresponding decrease in the valuation allowance included as part of the allowance for loan and lease losses.
This compared to $2.2 billion in provision for credit losses and a corresponding increase in the valuation allowance in both 2011 and 2010.
In 2012, there were $2.8 billion of write-offs in the Countrywide home equity PCI loan portfolio primarily related to the National Mortgage Settlement with a corresponding decrease in the PCI valuation allowance.
These write-offs had no impact on the provision for credit losses as these loans were fully reserved.
The valuation allowance associated with the PCI loan portfolio was $5.5 billion,$8.5 billion and $6.4 billion at December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The “other” amount under allowance for loan and lease losses primarily represents the net impact of portfolio sales, consolidations and deconsolidations, and foreign currency translation adjustments.
The 2011 amount includes a $449 million reduction in the allowance for loan and lease losses related to Canadian consumer card loans that were transferred to LHFS.
The “other” amount under the reserve for unfunded lending commitments for 2012, 2011 and 2010 primarily represents accretion of the Merrill Lynch purchase accounting adjustment and the impact of funding previously unfunded positions.
Certain of the motions to intervene and/or notices of intent to object allege various purported bases for opposition to the settlement, including challenges to the nature of the court proceeding and the lack of an opt-out mechanism, alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the Investor Group and/or the Trustee, the inadequacy of the settlement amount and the method of allocating the settlement amount among the Covered Trusts, while other motions do not make substantive objections but state that they need more information about the settlement.
It is not currently possible to predict how many parties who have appeared in the court proceeding will ultimately object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, whether the objections will prevent receipt of final court approval or the ultimate outcome of the court approval process, which can include appeals and could take a substantial period of time.
On August 10, 2012, the Court issued an order setting a schedule for discovery and other proceedings, and setting May 30, 2013 as the date for the final court hearing on the settlement to begin.
However, there may be changes to the schedule for the final court hearing and any appeals could take a substantial period of time.
Accordingly, it is not possible to predict when the court approval process will be completed.
If final court approval is not obtained by December 31, 2015, the Corporation and legacy Countrywide may withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement, if the Trustee consents.
The BNY Mellon Settlement also provides that if Covered Trusts holding loans with an unpaid principal balance exceeding a specified amount are excluded from the final BNY Mellon Settlement, based on investor objections or otherwise, the Corporation and legacy Countrywide have the option to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement pursuant to the terms of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement.
There can be no assurance that final court approval of the settlement will be obtained, that all conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement will be satisfied or, if certain conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, that the Corporation and legacy Countrywide will not withdraw from the settlement.
If final court approval is not obtained or if the Corporation and legacy Countrywide withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement in accordance with its terms, the Corporation’s future representations and warranties losses could be substantially different than existing accruals and the estimated range of possible loss over existing accruals described under Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience on page 215.2010 Government-sponsored Enterprise Agreements On December 31, 2010, the Corporation reached agreements with FHLMC and FNMA, under which the Corporation paid $2.8 billion to resolve certain repurchase claims involving first-lien residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs by entities related to legacy Countrywide (the 2010 GSE Agreements).
The agreement with FHLMC extinguished all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims arising out of any alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FHLMC through 2008, subject to certain exceptions.
The agreement with FNMA substantially resolved the existing pipeline of repurchase claims outstanding as of September 20, 2010 arising out of alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to loans sold directly by legacy Countrywide to FNMA.
The 2010 GSE Agreements did not cover outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase claims arising out of any alleged breaches of selling representations and warranties related to legacy Bank of America first-lien residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs or other loans sold directly to the GSEs other than described above, loan servicing obligations, other contractual obligations or loans contained in private-label securitizations.
Unresolved Repurchase Claims Unresolved representations and warranties repurchase claims represent the notional amount of repurchase claims made by counterparties, typically the outstanding principal balance or the unpaid principal balance at the time of default.
In the case of firstlien mortgages, the claim amount is often significantly greater than the expected loss amount due to the benefit of collateral and, in some cases, MI or mortgage guarantee payments.
Claims received from a counterparty remain outstanding until the underlying loan is repurchased, the claim is rescinded by the counterparty, or the claim is otherwise resolved.
When a claim is denied and the Corporation does not receive a response from the counterparty, the claim remains in the unresolved repurchase claims balance until resolution.
The table below presents unresolved repurchase claims at December 31, 2012 and 2011.
The unresolved repurchase claims include only claims where the Corporation believes that the counterparty has a basis to submit claims.
For additional information, see Whole Loan Sales and Private-label Securitizations Experience in this Note and Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies.
These repurchase claims do not include any repurchase claims related to the BNY Mellon Settlement regarding the Covered Trusts.
Unresolved Repurchase Claims by Counterparty and Product Type
## Table 3 ##
(1) Excludes certain MI rescission notices.
However, at December 31, 2012 and 2011, included $2.3 billion and $1.2 billion of repurchase requests received from the GSEs that have resulted solely from MI rescission notices.
For additional information, see Mortgage Insurance Rescission Notices in this Note.
(2) At December 31, 2012 and 2011, unresolved repurchase claims did not include repurchase demands of $1.6 billion and $1.7 billion where the Corporation believes the claimants have not satisfied the contractual thresholds as noted on page 211.
(3) As a result of the FNMA Settlement, $12.2 billion of these claims were resolved in January 2013.
During 2012, the Corporation received $22.4 billion in new repurchase claims, including $10.3 billion submitted by FNMA and covered by the FNMA Settlement, $2.3 billion submitted by the GSEs for both legacy Countrywide and legacy Bank of America originations not covered by the 2010 GSE Agreements or the FNMA Settlement, $8.0 billion submitted by private-label securitization trustees, $1.5 billion from whole-loan investors, primarily third-
HOLLYFRONTIER CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Continued
## Table 4 ##
Transportation and storage costs incurred under these agreements totaled $140.5 million, $135.1 million and $137.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
These amounts do not include contractual commitments under our long-term transportation agreements with HEP, as all transactions with HEP are eliminated in these consolidated financial statements.
We have a crude oil supply contract that requires the supplier to deliver a specified volume of crude oil or pay a shortfall fee for the difference in the actual barrels delivered to us less the specified barrels per the supply contract.
For the contract year ended August 31, 2017, the actual number of barrels delivered to us was substantially less than the specified barrels, and we recorded a reduction to cost of goods sold and accumulated a shortfall fee receivable of $26.0 million during this period.
In September 2017, the supplier notified us they are disputing the shortfall fee owed and in October 2017 notified us of their demand for arbitration.
We offset the receivable with payments of invoices for deliveries of crude oil received subsequent to August 31, 2017, which is permitted under the supply contract.
We believe the disputes and claims made by the supplier are without merit.
In March, 2006, a subsidiary of ours sold the assets of Montana Refining Company under an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”).
Calumet Montana Refining LLC, the current owner of the assets, has submitted requests for reimbursement of approximately $20.0 million pursuant to contractual indemnity provisions under the APA for various costs incurred, as well as additional claims related to environmental matters.
We have rejected most of the claims for payment, and this matter is scheduled for arbitration beginning in July 2018.
We have accrued the costs we believe are owed pursuant to the APA, and we estimate that any reasonably possible losses beyond the amounts accrued are not material.
NOTE 20: Segment Information Effective fourth quarter of 2017, we revised our reportable segments to align with certain changes in how our chief operating decision maker manages and allocates resources to our business.
Accordingly, our Tulsa Refineries’lubricants operations, previously reported in the Refining segment, are now combined with the operations of our Petro-Canada Lubricants business (acquired February 1, 2017) and reported in the Lubricants and Specialty Products segment.
Our prior period segment information has been retrospectively adjusted to reflect our current segment presentation.
Our operations are organized into three reportable segments, Refining, Lubricants and Specialty Products and HEP.
Our operations that are not included in the Refining, Lubricants and Specialty Products and HEP segments are included in Corporate and Other.
Intersegment transactions are eliminated in our consolidated financial statements and are included in Eliminations.
Corporate and Other and Eliminations are aggregated and presented under Corporate, Other and Eliminations column.
The Refining segment represents the operations of the El Dorado, Tulsa, Navajo, Cheyenne and Woods Cross Refineries and HFC Asphalt (aggregated as a reportable segment).
Refining activities involve the purchase and refining of crude oil and wholesale and branded marketing of refined products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel.
These petroleum products are primarily marketed in the Mid-Continent, Southwest and Rocky Mountain regions of the United States.
HFC Asphalt operates various asphalt terminals in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2012</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>HomeLoans</td><td>Credit Cardand OtherConsumer</td><td>Commercial</td><td>TotalAllowance</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1</td><td>$21,079</td><td>$8,569</td><td>$4,135</td><td>$33,783</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and leases charged off</td><td>-7,849</td><td>-7,727</td><td>-2,096</td><td>-17,672</td></tr><tr><td>Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off</td><td>496</td><td>1,519</td><td>749</td><td>2,764</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-offs</td><td>-7,353</td><td>-6,208</td><td>-1,347</td><td>-14,908</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan and lease losses</td><td>4,073</td><td>3,899</td><td>338</td><td>8,310</td></tr><tr><td>Write-offs of home equity PCI loans</td><td>-2,820</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-2,820</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-46</td><td>-120</td><td>-20</td><td>-186</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, December 31</td><td>14,933</td><td>6,140</td><td>3,106</td><td>24,179</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, January 1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>714</td><td>714</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for unfunded lending commitments</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-141</td><td>-141</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-60</td><td>-60</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, December 31</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>513</td><td>513</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for credit losses, December 31</td><td>$14,933</td><td>$6,140</td><td>$3,619</td><td>$24,692</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2011</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1</td><td>$19,252</td><td>$15,463</td><td>$7,170</td><td>$41,885</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and leases charged off</td><td>-9,291</td><td>-12,247</td><td>-3,204</td><td>-24,742</td></tr><tr><td>Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off</td><td>894</td><td>2,124</td><td>891</td><td>3,909</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-offs</td><td>-8,397</td><td>-10,123</td><td>-2,313</td><td>-20,833</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan and lease losses</td><td>10,300</td><td>4,025</td><td>-696</td><td>13,629</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-76</td><td>-796</td><td>-26</td><td>-898</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, December 31</td><td>21,079</td><td>8,569</td><td>4,135</td><td>33,783</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, January 1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,188</td><td>1,188</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for unfunded lending commitments</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-219</td><td>-219</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-255</td><td>-255</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, December 31</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>714</td><td>714</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for credit losses, December 31</td><td>$21,079</td><td>$8,569</td><td>$4,849</td><td>$34,497</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2010</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, January 1</td><td>$16,329</td><td>$22,243</td><td>$9,416</td><td>$47,988</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and leases charged off</td><td>-10,915</td><td>-20,865</td><td>-5,610</td><td>-37,390</td></tr><tr><td>Recoveries of loans and leases previously charged off</td><td>396</td><td>2,034</td><td>626</td><td>3,056</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-offs</td><td>-10,519</td><td>-18,831</td><td>-4,984</td><td>-34,334</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan and lease losses</td><td>13,335</td><td>12,115</td><td>2,745</td><td>28,195</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>107</td><td>-64</td><td>-7</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses, December 31</td><td>19,252</td><td>15,463</td><td>7,170</td><td>41,885</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, January 1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,487</td><td>1,487</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for unfunded lending commitments</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>240</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-539</td><td>-539</td></tr><tr><td>Reserve for unfunded lending commitments, December 31</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1,188</td><td>1,188</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for credit losses, December 31</td><td>$19,252</td><td>$15,463</td><td>$8,358</td><td>$43,073</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>By counterparty<sup>-1, 2</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GSEs<sup>-3</sup></td><td>$13,530</td><td>$6,221</td></tr><tr><td>Monolines</td><td>2,449</td><td>3,082</td></tr><tr><td>Whole-loan investors, private-label securitization trustees, third-party securitization sponsors and other</td><td>12,299</td><td>3,304</td></tr><tr><td>Total unresolved repurchase claims by counterparty<sup>-3</sup></td><td>$28,278</td><td>$12,607</td></tr><tr><td>By product type<sup>-1, 2</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prime loans</td><td>$8,793</td><td>$3,925</td></tr><tr><td>Alt-A</td><td>5,428</td><td>2,286</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity</td><td>2,394</td><td>2,872</td></tr><tr><td>Pay option</td><td>5,884</td><td>1,993</td></tr><tr><td>Subprime</td><td>3,687</td><td>891</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2,092</td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>Total unresolved repurchase claims by product type<sup>-3</sup></td><td>$28,278</td><td>$12,607</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>(In thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>$148,716</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>132,547</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>119,639</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>107,400</td></tr><tr><td>2022</td><td>102,884</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>857,454</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,468,640</td></tr></table>

Question: How many Provision for loan and lease losses exceed the average of Provision for loan and lease losses in 2011?
Answer: 2