XML 29 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.3.0.15
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] 
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Legal Matters
     Apache is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls. The Company has an accrued liability of approximately $11 million for all legal contingencies that are deemed to be probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated. Apache’s estimates are based on information known about the matters and its experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Although actual amounts could differ from management’s estimate, none of the actions are believed by management to involve future amounts that would be material to Apache’s financial position or results of operations after consideration of recorded accruals. It is management’s opinion that the loss for any other litigation matters and claims that are reasonably possible to occur will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
   Argentine Environmental Claims
     As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the 2010 fiscal year, in 2006 the Company acquired a subsidiary of Pioneer Natural Resources in Argentina (PNRA) that is involved in various administrative proceedings with environmental authorities in the Neuquén Province relating to permits for and discharges from operations in that province. In addition, PNRA was named in a suit initiated against oil companies operating in the Neuquén basin entitled Asociación de Superficiarios de la Patagonia v. YPF S.A., et. al., originally filed on August 21, 2003, in the Argentine National Supreme Court of Justice relating to various environmental and remediation claims. No material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year.
   Louisiana Restoration
     As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year, numerous surface owners have filed claims or sent demand letters to various oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that, under either expressed or implied lease terms or Louisiana law, they are liable for damage measured by the cost of restoration of leased premises to their original condition as well as damages for contamination and cleanup. No material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year.
   Hurricane-Related Litigation
     On May 27, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Comer et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-220 HS0-JMR, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, was filed in which certain named residents of Mississippi, as plaintiffs, allege that the oil, coal, and chemical industries are responsible for global warming, which they claim caused or increased the effect of Hurricane Katrina, allegedly resulting among other things in economic losses and increased insurance premiums. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages for losses sustained, a declaration that state law tort claims are not preempted by federal law, and punitive and exemplary damages. Apache is one of numerous defendants. A similar action filed by Comer et al. was previously dismissed as explained in detail in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year.
   Australia Gas Pipeline Force Majeure
     As more fully described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year, Company subsidiaries reported a pipeline explosion that interrupted deliveries of natural gas in Australia to customers under various long-term contracts. No material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year, except as follows:
     Apache Northwest Pty Ltd (Apache Northwest) and Apache Energy Limited (Apache Energy) were served with a lawsuit captioned Alcoa of Australia Limited vs. Apache Energy Limited, Apache Northwest Pty Ltd, Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd, and Kufpec Australia Pty Ltd, Civ. 1481 of 2011, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The lawsuit concerns the pipeline explosion at Varanus Island in Western Australia on June 3, 2008, that interrupted deliveries of natural gas to Alcoa under two long-term contracts. Alcoa challenges the declaration of force majeure and the validity of the liquidated damages provisions in the contracts. Alcoa asserts claims based on breach of contract, statutory duties, and duty of care. Alcoa seeks approximately $158 million AUD in general damages or, alternatively, approximately $5.7 million AUD in liquidated damages. Apache Northwest and Apache Energy do not believe that Alcoa’s claims have merit and will vigorously pursue their defenses against such claims.
     In reference to the pipeline license described in Note 8 of the financial statements in Apache’s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for its 2010 fiscal year, the application by Apache Northwest, Kufpec Australia Pty Ltd, and Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd for renewal and variation of the pipeline license covering the area of the Varanus Island facility was granted on April 19, 2011, by the Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines and Petroleum. The period of the license is 21 years commencing April 20, 2011.
   Escheat Audits
     The State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), has notified numerous companies, including Apache, that the State intends to examine its books and records and those of its subsidiaries and related entities to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws. The review will be conducted by Kelmar Associates on behalf of the State of Delaware. At least 30 other states have retained their own consultants and have sent similar notifications. The scope of each state’s audit varies. The State of Delaware advises, for example, that the scope of its examination will be for the period 1981 through the present. It is possible that one or more of the state audits could extend to all 50 states.
   Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits
     On May 19, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Oswal v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. 2011-30302, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, was filed in which plaintiff Pankaj Oswal, in his personal capacity and as trustee for the Burrup Trust, asserts claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. This lawsuit is one of a number of legal actions involving the Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Burrup Fertilisers) ammonia plant in Western Australia (the Burrup plant) founded by Oswal. Oswal’s shares, and those of his wife, together representing 65 percent of Burrup Holdings Limited (which owns Burrup Fertilisers), are being offered for sale by externally-appointed administrators in Australia as a result of alleged events of default on loans made to the Oswals by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ). In the Texas lawsuit, plaintiff Oswal alleges, among other things, that the Company induced him to make certain investments relating to the Burrup plant. Plaintiff Oswal seeks damages in the amount of $491 million USD. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The Texas lawsuit relates to a pending action filed by Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd against Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd et al., Civ 2329 of 2009, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its contractual rights and obligations under a gas sales agreement between Burrup Fertilisers and the Harriet Joint Venture (comprised of a Company subsidiary and two joint venture partners, Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd and Kufpec Australia Pty Ltd). The Company and the Company’s subsidiary, each of which has been added as a defendant by counterclaim, are diligently pursuing their claims and defenses.
Environmental Matters
     As of September 30, 2011, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $131 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2011, that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations. There can be no assurance, however, that current regulatory requirements will not change or past non-compliance with environmental laws will not be discovered on the Company’s properties.
     Apache Canada Ltd. has asserted a claim against BP Canada arising out of the acquisition of certain Canadian properties under the parties’ Partnership Interest and Share Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 20, 2010. The dispute centers on Apache Canada Ltd.’s identification of Alleged Adverse Conditions, as that term is defined in the parties’ agreement, and more specifically the contention that liabilities associated with such conditions were retained by BP Canada as seller. Apache Canada Ltd. is diligently pursuing this claim.
     On May 25, 2011, a panel of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) published a report dated May 23, 2011, and titled “Vermilion Block, Production Platform A: An Investigation of the September 2, 2010 Incident in the Gulf of Mexico.” The report concerned the BOEMRE’s investigation of a fire on the Vermilion 380 A platform located in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time of the incident, Mariner operated the platform. A small amount of hydrocarbons spilled from the platform into the surrounding water as a result of the incident, and 13 workers evacuated to safety by jumping into the water where they were later rescued. The BOEMRE concluded in its investigation that the fire was caused by Mariner’s failure to adequately maintain or operate the platform’s heater-treater in a safe condition. The BOEMRE also identified other safety deficiencies on the platform. The BOEMRE has recommended that several Incidents of Non-Compliance be issued to Mariner, which may provide the basis for the assessment of civil penalties against Mariner. Effective November 10, 2010, Mariner was acquired by Apache.