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 June 30, 2014, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $21 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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, but will continue to review and consider claims presented by YPF. 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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.

With respect to Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company et al., Civil Action no. 13-5410, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the federal court has retained jurisdiction over the matter after denying plaintiff’s motion to remand on June 27, 2014. Further, the Louisiana state government has passed a new law (SB 469) clarifying that only entities authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act may bring litigation to assert claims arising out of the permitted activities. Plaintiff is not one of those authorized entities. The Company and other defendants will seek dismissal of the case, including pursuant to SB 469.

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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. Further, in January 2014, an Alcoa affiliate pleaded guilty in United States of America v. Alcoa World Alumina LLC, Criminal No. 14-7, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to a charge under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) anti-bribery provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 78dd-2 and 18 U.S.C. Section 2. This matter overlaps with Alcoa’s claims against Company subsidiaries in that both cases concern alumina produced from Alcoa’s alumina refineries in Western Australia during the period of the gas supply disruption in 2008-2009. In the circumstances of the admitted, agreed, and stipulated facts set forth in the Alcoa affiliate’s Plea Agreement, which is a public document, Company subsidiaries will defend against Alcoa’s claims on the basis that Alcoa is barred by law from recovering economic losses.

In the week prior to expiration of the applicable six-year limitations period on June 3, 2014, the following civil lawsuits were filed in connection with the Varanus Island pipeline explosion (the Incident):

•

As previously reported, a lawsuit filed by Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Burrup Fertilisers) in Texas in December 2009 was dismissed in March 2013 on the ground of forum non conveniens. On May 29, 2014, Burrup Fertilisers (now known as Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd, YPFPL) re-filed the lawsuit in Western Australia, captioned Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1742 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. In the lawsuit, which is being pressed by YPFPL’s insurers, YPFPL alleges that a joint venture whose members include an Apache subsidiary supplied YPFPL with natural gas and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiff incurred damages in the amount of nearly $166 million USD for economic losses and, alternatively, contractual liquidated damages and “abnormal costs” in the amount of approximately $13 million USD. In addition to all of their other defenses, the Company and its subsidiaries will defend against YPFPL’s claims on the basis that during the gas supply disruption there was no enforceable gas supply contract between YPFPL and Company subsidiaries.

•

In Wesfarmers LPG Pty Ltd et al. vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1740 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, plaintiffs allege that Alinta Sales Pty Ltd (Alinta) supplied them (and associated entities) with natural gas and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiffs incurred an unspecified amount of damages for alleged lost profits, alternative gas, and associated expenses. Plaintiffs’ Indorsement of Claim (a short form of pleading) has been filed with the court but not yet served on the Apache defendants.

•

In Iluka Resources Limited vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1748 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, plaintiff alleges that Alinta supplied it with natural gas and power and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiff incurred damages of approximately $23 million (no currency is specified) for alleged lost profits, alternative energy, and associated expenses. Plaintiff’s Indorsement of Claim has been filed with the court but not yet served on the Apache defendants.

•

In Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1749 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, plaintiff alleges that Alinta supplied it with natural gas and power and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiff incurred an unspecified amount of damages for alleged lost profits, the cost of alternative gas and power, and associated expenses. Plaintiff’s Indorsement of Claim has been filed with the court but not yet served on the Apache defendants.

•

In EDL LNG (WA) Pty Ltd et al. vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1751 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, plaintiffs allege that an Apache subsidiary and Santos (BOL) Pty Ltd supplied one such plaintiff with natural gas and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiffs incurred damages of approximately $17.5 million (no currency is specified) for alleged alternative gas and diesel, and, alternatively, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of liquidated damages from their gas sellers.

•

In Newmont Mining Services Pty Ltd et al. vs. Apache Energy Limited et al., Civ. 1727 of 2014, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, plaintiffs allege that Santos (BOL) Pty Ltd supplied one such plaintiff with natural gas and that, as a consequence of a disruption in gas supply following the Incident, plaintiffs incurred an unspecified amount of damages for alleged alternative energy and associated expenses, except that as an alternative measure of damage plaintiffs seek to recover $6.4 million (no currency is specified) in liquidated damages from Santos (BOL) Pty Ltd. Plaintiffs’ Indorsement of Claim has been filed with the court but not yet served on the Apache defendants.

With respect to the claims in which the plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages, the exposure related to such claims is not currently determinable but, in each case, the alleged damages are not expected to be material. Insurance statistics maintained by the Insurance Council of Australia show that the total insured loss resulting from the gas supply disruption was $230 million AUD.

The applicable six-year limitations period has expired. In six years none of the above-referenced plaintiffs presented a claim to Apache or its subsidiaries prior to filing suit and instead allowed the same plaintiff law firm to file suit in Western Australia at the latest possible moment. The Apache defendants do not believe that any of the claims have merit and will vigorously pursue their defenses against such claims. The plaintiffs seek relief primarily in tort, in circumvention of their own positive arrangements regarding risk allocation. In respect of the pending claims filed prior to expiration of the limitations period, contractual liquidated damages under the long-term contracts with such provisions, and under which an Apache subsidiary is a gas supplier, would not be expected to exceed $20 million AUD exclusive of interest. This is a reduction from previous estimates.

No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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 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 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. The court granted plaintiffs’ applications and entered a scheduling order with respect to the filing of all amended pleadings. On July 23, 2014, the Apache defendants filed their responsive pleadings, which include substantial counterclaims against the Oswals by a Company subsidiary. No other material change in the status of these matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 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 Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 17, 2014 for its 2013 fiscal year.

Environmental Matters

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $89 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 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.