XML 34 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has various commitment agreements and other contractual obligations which are issued in the normal course of business. As of June 30, 2020, the Company’s material off-balance sheet arrangements and transactions include $71.6 million in outstanding letters of credit issued under its Revolving Credit Facilities (see Note 10 — Long-Term Debt) and $15.7 million in net surety bond exposure issued as financial assurance on certain agreements. As of June 30, 2020, there have been no material changes to the Company’s future commitments disclosed in Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies in the Company’s 2019 Annual Report.
Litigation. The Company is party to various legal and/or regulatory proceedings from time to time arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company determines that a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on its best estimate using information available at the time. The Company discloses contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, the matter should otherwise be disclosed.
As of June 30, 2020, a loss accrual of $20 million has been recognized in accrued liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, which the Company believes is the estimable amount of loss that could potentially be incurred from its pending legal proceedings based upon currently available information.
Mirada litigation. On March 23, 2017, Mirada Energy, LLC, Mirada Wild Basin Holding Company, LLC and Mirada Energy Fund I, LLC (collectively, “Mirada”) filed a lawsuit against Oasis, OPNA and OMS, seeking monetary damages in excess of $100 million, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs (Mirada Energy, LLC, et al. v. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC, et al.; in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; Case Number 2017-19911). Mirada asserts that it is a working interest owner in certain acreage owned and operated by the Company in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada asserts that the Company has breached certain agreements by: (1) failing to allow Mirada to participate in the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; (2) refusing to provide Mirada with information that Mirada contends is required under certain agreements and failing to provide information in a timely fashion; (3) failing to consult with Mirada and failing to obtain Mirada’s consent prior to drilling more than one well at a time in Wild Basin; and (4) overstating the estimated costs of proposed well operations in Wild Basin. Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company be removed as operator in Wild Basin at Mirada’s election and that Mirada be allowed to elect a new operator; certain agreements apply to the Company and Mirada and Wild Basin with respect to this dispute; the Company be required to provide all information within its possession regarding proposed or ongoing operations in Wild Basin; and the Company not be permitted to drill, or propose to drill, more than one well at a time in Wild Basin without obtaining Mirada’s consent. Mirada also seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the Company’s current midstream operations in Wild Basin. Specifically, Mirada seeks a declaratory judgment that Mirada has a right to participate in the Company’s Wild Basin midstream operations, consisting of produced water disposal, crude oil gathering and natural gas gathering and processing; that, upon Mirada’s election to participate, Mirada is obligated to pay its proportionate costs of the Company’s midstream operations in Wild Basin; and that Mirada would then be entitled to receive a share of revenues from the midstream operations and would not be charged any amount for its use of these facilities for production from the “Contract Area.”
On June 30, 2017, Mirada amended its original petition to add a claim that the Company has breached certain agreements by charging Mirada for midstream services provided by its affiliates and to seek a declaratory judgment that Mirada is entitled to be paid its share of total proceeds from the sale of hydrocarbons received by OPNA or any affiliate of OPNA without deductions for midstream services provided by OPNA or its affiliates.
On February 2, 2018 and February 16, 2018, Mirada filed a second and third amended petition, respectively. In these filings, Mirada alleged new legal theories for being entitled to enforce the underlying contracts and added Bighorn DevCo LLC (“Bighorn DevCo”), Bobcat DevCo LLC (“Bobcat DevCo”) and Beartooth DevCo LLC (“Beartooth DevCo”) as defendants, asserting that these entities were created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada.
On March 2, 2018, Mirada filed a fourth amended petition that described Mirada’s alleged ownership and assignment of interests in assets purportedly governed by agreements at issue in the lawsuit. On August 31, 2018, Mirada filed a fifth amended petition that added OMP as a defendant, asserting that it was created in bad faith in an effort to avoid contractual obligations owed to Mirada.
On July 2, 2019, Oasis, OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo (collectively the “Oasis Entities”) counterclaimed against Mirada for a judgment declaring that Oasis Entities are not obligated to purchase, manage, gather, transport, compress, process, market, sell or otherwise handle Mirada’s proportionate share of oil and gas produced from OPNA-operated wells. The counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.
On November 1, 2019, Mirada filed a sixth amended petition that stated that Mirada seeks in excess of $200 million in damages and asserted that OMS is an agent of OPNA and OPNA, OMS, OMP, Bighorn DevCo, Bobcat DevCo and Beartooth DevCo are agents of Oasis. Mirada also changed its allegation that it may elect a new operator for the subject wells to instead allege that Mirada may remove Oasis as operator.
On November 1, 2019, the Oasis Entities amended their counterclaim against Mirada for a judgment declaring that a provision in one of the agreements does not incorporate by reference any provisions in a certain participation agreement and joint operating agreement. The additional counterclaim also seeks attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. On the same day, the Oasis Entities filed an amended answer asserting additional defenses against Mirada’s claims.
On March 13, 2020, Mirada filed a seventh amended petition that did not assert any new causes of action and did not add any new parties. Mirada did add an allegation that Oasis breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to certain contracts.
On April 30, 2020, Mirada abandoned its prior claims related to overstating the estimated costs of proposed well operations in Wild Basin. At this point, it is unclear what impact this has on damages because Mirada asserts that its information and failure to consult and obtain consent claims result in the same damages as its abandoned estimated costs claim.
The Company believes that Mirada’s claims are without merit, that the Company has complied with its obligations under the applicable agreements and that some of Mirada’s claims are grounded in agreements that do not apply to the Company. The Company filed answers denying all of Mirada’s claims and intends and continues to vigorously defend against Mirada’s claims.
Discovery is ongoing, and each of the parties has made a number of procedural filings and motions, and additional filings and motions can be expected over the course of the claim. Trial is scheduled for October 2020. The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or resolution of such matter. If such matter were to be determined adversely to the Company’s interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Such an adverse determination could materially impact the Company’s ability to operate its properties in Wild Basin or develop its identified drilling locations in Wild Basin on its current development schedule. A determination that Mirada has a right to participate in the Company’s midstream operations could materially reduce the interests of the Company in their current assets and future midstream opportunities and related revenues in Wild Basin. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify OMP for any losses resulting from this litigation under the omnibus agreement it entered into with OMP at the time of OMP’s initial public offering.
Solomon litigation. On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“OP LLC”), was named as a defendant in the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code (“Title 29”) as the result of OP LLC’s alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain overtime hours worked. The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a class action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at least one workday. No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class certified.
The Company believes that Mr. Solomon’s claims are without merit and that OP LLC has complied with its obligations under the FLSA and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer denying all of Mr. Solomon’s claims and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or resolutions of such matter. If such matter were to be determined adversely to the Company’s interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.