COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	8. 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. As of March 31, 2014, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $12 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, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. For material matters that Apache believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, the Company has disclosed the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at this time. 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, results of operations, or liquidity. For additional information on each of the Legal Matters described below, please see Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. *Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff* In 2003, the Asociación de Superficiarios de la Patagonia (ASSUPA) filed lawsuits against Company subsidiaries in Argentina courts relating to various environmental and remediation claims concerning certain geographic areas of Argentina, including the Neuquén and Austral basins. In addition, effective December 1, 2011, Enargas, an autonomous entity that functions under the Argentine Ministry of Economy, created a tariff charge on all fuel gas used by oil and gas producers in field operations, which is likewise the subject of legal proceedings in Argentina. On March 12, 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries completed the sale of all of the Company’s subsidiaries’ operations and properties in Argentina to YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF). As part of that sale, YPF assumed responsibility for all of the past, present, and future litigation in Argentina involving Company subsidiaries, including the ASSUPA and Enargas matters, except that Company subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify YPF for certain environmental, tax, and royalty obligations capped at an aggregate of $100 million. The indemnity is subject to specific agreed conditions precedent, thresholds, contingencies, limitations, claim deadlines, loss sharing, and other terms and conditions. On April 11, 2014, YPF provided its first notice of claims pursuant to the indemnity. Company subsidiaries have not paid any amounts under the indemnity, and will respond to YPF in due course. Further, Company subsidiaries retain the right to enforce certain Argentina-related indemnification obligations against Pioneer Natural Resources Company (Pioneer) up to $67.5 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and Pioneer subsidiaries. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. *Louisiana Restoration* 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. In a case captioned Heloise, LLC, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 120113 in the District Court for the Parish of Lafourche, plaintiff landowners allege that defendants’ oil and gas operations contaminated their property primarily with chlorides. Apache, a defendant in the case, acquired its interest in the oil and gas operations on plaintiffs’ property from the former operator, Amoco Production Company, when the Company purchased the stock of Amoco’s subsidiary, MW Petroleum Corporation, in 1991. BP America Production Company, as Amoco’s successor in interest, and Apache dispute whether and to what extent they might owe each other indemnity in the case. Plaintiffs’ expert has recently opined that the cost of remediating plaintiffs’ 825 acres exceeds $200 million. Trial is set for December 2014. While an adverse judgment against the Company might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously defend the case. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. *Australia Gas Pipeline Force Majeure* In 2008, Company subsidiaries reported a pipeline explosion that interrupted deliveries of natural gas in Australia to customers under various long-term contracts. In the case captioned Alcoa of Australia Limited v. 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, on June 20, 2012, the Supreme Court struck out Alcoa’s claim that the liquidated damages provisions under two long-term contracts are unenforceable as a penalty and also struck out Alcoa’s claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. On September 17, 2013, the Western Australia Court of Appeal dismissed the Company subsidiaries’ appeal concerning Alcoa’s remaining tort claim for economic loss. On October 15, 2013, the Company subsidiaries applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. On April 11, 2014, the High Court refused special leave to appeal. All of the Company subsidiaries’ defenses remain intact for further proceedings at the trial court level, including the defenses that were the subject of the special leave application. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. *Breton Lawsuit* On October 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Breton Energy, L.L.C. et al. v. Mariner Energy Resources, Inc., et al., Case 4:11-cv-03561, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking compensation from defendants for allegedly depriving plaintiffs of rights to hydrocarbons in a reservoir described by plaintiffs as a common reservoir in West Cameron Blocks 171 and 172 offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. On May 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On June 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is pending. No material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. *Escheat Audits* The State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), has notified numerous companies, including Apache Corporation, 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 is ongoing, and no material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. *Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits* On October 11, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Apache Corporation, No. WAD 389/2013, in the Federal Court of Australia, District of Western Australia, General Division, was filed in which plaintiff asserts claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. The Company does not believe the lawsuit has merit and will vigorously defend against it. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. In the case captioned Radhika Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2011 4653, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, plaintiff has filed an application seeking to amend her statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Similarly, in a companion case captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2012 01995, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, plaintiff has also filed an application seeking to amend his statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. This is the second attempt by the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings, with their first attempt having been unsuccessful. While reserving all rights, including all defenses to the plaintiffs’ proposed amended pleadings, the Company and its subsidiaries did not object to the plaintiffs’ revised applications to amend their pleadings, which is a procedural matter. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. Concerning the action filed by Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd (Tap) against Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd et al., Civ. 2329 of 2009, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, no material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year. Environmental Matters As of March 31, 2014, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $92 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of March 31, 2014 that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. 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.

8. 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. As of March 31, 2014, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $12 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, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. For material matters that Apache believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, the Company has disclosed the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at this time. 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, results of operations, or liquidity.

For additional information on each of the Legal Matters described below, please see Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff

In 2003, the Asociación de Superficiarios de la Patagonia (ASSUPA) filed lawsuits against Company subsidiaries in Argentina courts relating to various environmental and remediation claims concerning certain geographic areas of Argentina, including the Neuquén and Austral basins. In addition, effective December 1, 2011, Enargas, an autonomous entity that functions under the Argentine Ministry of Economy, created a tariff charge on all fuel gas used by oil and gas producers in field operations, which is likewise the subject of legal proceedings in Argentina.

On March 12, 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries completed the sale of all of the Company’s subsidiaries’ operations and properties in Argentina to YPF Sociedad Anonima (YPF). As part of that sale, YPF assumed responsibility for all of the past, present, and future litigation in Argentina involving Company subsidiaries, including the ASSUPA and Enargas matters, except that Company subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify YPF for certain environmental, tax, and royalty obligations capped at an aggregate of $100 million. The indemnity is subject to specific agreed conditions precedent, thresholds, contingencies, limitations, claim deadlines, loss sharing, and other terms and conditions. On April 11, 2014, YPF provided its first notice of claims pursuant to the indemnity. Company subsidiaries have not paid any amounts under the indemnity, and will respond to YPF in due course. Further, Company subsidiaries retain the right to enforce certain Argentina-related indemnification obligations against Pioneer Natural Resources Company (Pioneer) up to $67.5 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and Pioneer subsidiaries. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Louisiana Restoration

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.

In a case captioned Heloise, LLC, et al. v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 120113 in the District Court for the Parish of Lafourche, plaintiff landowners allege that defendants’ oil and gas operations contaminated their property primarily with chlorides. Apache, a defendant in the case, acquired its interest in the oil and gas operations on plaintiffs’ property from the former operator, Amoco Production Company, when the Company purchased the stock of Amoco’s subsidiary, MW Petroleum Corporation, in 1991. BP America Production Company, as Amoco’s successor in interest, and Apache dispute whether and to what extent they might owe each other indemnity in the case. Plaintiffs’ expert has recently opined that the cost of remediating plaintiffs’ 825 acres exceeds $200 million. Trial is set for December 2014. While an adverse judgment against the Company might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously defend the case.

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Australia Gas Pipeline Force Majeure

In 2008, Company subsidiaries reported a pipeline explosion that interrupted deliveries of natural gas in Australia to customers under various long-term contracts.

In the case captioned Alcoa of Australia Limited v. 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, on June 20, 2012, the Supreme Court struck out Alcoa’s claim that the liquidated damages provisions under two long-term contracts are unenforceable as a penalty and also struck out Alcoa’s claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. On September 17, 2013, the Western Australia Court of Appeal dismissed the Company subsidiaries’ appeal concerning Alcoa’s remaining tort claim for economic loss. On October 15, 2013, the Company subsidiaries applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. On April 11, 2014, the High Court refused special leave to appeal. All of the Company subsidiaries’ defenses remain intact for further proceedings at the trial court level, including the defenses that were the subject of the special leave application.

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Breton Lawsuit

On October 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Breton Energy, L.L.C. et al. v. Mariner Energy Resources, Inc., et al., Case 4:11-cv-03561, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking compensation from defendants for allegedly depriving plaintiffs of rights to hydrocarbons in a reservoir described by plaintiffs as a common reservoir in West Cameron Blocks 171 and 172 offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. On May 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On June 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is pending. No material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Escheat Audits

The State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), has notified numerous companies, including Apache Corporation, 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 is ongoing, and no material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits

On October 11, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Apache Corporation, No. WAD 389/2013, in the Federal Court of Australia, District of Western Australia, General Division, was filed in which plaintiff asserts claims against the Company under the Australian Trade Practices Act. The Company does not believe the lawsuit has merit and will vigorously defend against it. No other material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

In the case captioned Radhika Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2011 4653, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, plaintiff has filed an application seeking to amend her statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Similarly, in a companion case captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2012 01995, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, plaintiff has also filed an application seeking to amend his statement of claim in order to add parties as defendants to the proceedings, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. This is the second attempt by the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings, with their first attempt having been unsuccessful. While reserving all rights, including all defenses to the plaintiffs’ proposed amended pleadings, the Company and its subsidiaries did not object to the plaintiffs’ revised applications to amend their pleadings, which is a procedural matter. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Concerning the action filed by Tap (Harriet) Pty Ltd (Tap) against Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd et al., Civ. 2329 of 2009, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, no material change in the status of this matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2013 fiscal year.

Environmental Matters

As of March 31, 2014, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $92 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of March 31, 2014 that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. 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.