Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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. As of June 30, 2015, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $15 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, 2014. *Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff* No material change in the status of the YPF Sociedad Anónima and Pioneer Natural Resources Company indemnities matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year. *Louisiana Restoration* As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 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. In a case captioned State of Louisiana and the Cameron Parish School Board v. Apache Corporation et al., Docket No. 10-18672, in the 38^th Judicial District Court, Parish of Cameron, State of Louisiana, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration and production activities contaminated plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs claim damages in the range of $7 million to $96 million, depending upon the extent of any remediation that may be ordered. Apache, a defendant in the case, acquired its interest in the oil and gas operations on plaintiffs’ property from the former operator, defendant Davis Oil Company, and subsequently sold the interest to defendant Wagner Oil Company (Wagner). Apache claims indemnity from Wagner. The case is set for trial in November 2015. While an adverse judgment against Apache might be possible, Apache disagrees with plaintiffs’ damage models and will vigorously oppose the claims. In respect of three lawsuits filed by the Parish of Plaquemines against the Company and other oil and gas producers in the 25^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana (captioned Parish of Plaquemines v. Rozel Operating Company et al., Docket No. 60-996; Parish of Plaquemines v. Apache Oil Corporation et al., Docket No. 61-000; and Parish of Plaquemines v. HHE Energy Company et al., Docket No. 60-983), defendants filed notices to remove the cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, civil action Nos. 13-6722, 13-6711, and 13-6735. Plaintiff’s motions to remand have been granted. 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 2014 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. The civil lawsuits concerning the pipeline explosion, all of which were filed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, have been resolved fully and dismissed on confidential terms, including for an exchange of consideration that is not material to Apache. The lawsuits are described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year. On April 10, 2015, the court dismissed the lawsuits filed by plaintiffs Alcoa (Civ. 1481 of 2011), Barrick (Civ. 2656 of 2013), EDL LNG (Civ. 1751 of 2014), and Yara (Civ. 1742 of 2014). On April 9, 2015, plaintiffs Harvey (Civ. 1749 of 2014), Iluka (Civ. 1748 of 2014), Newmont (Civ. 1727 of 2014), and Wesfarmers (Civ. 1740 of 2014) discontinued their lawsuits, which were never served on the Apache defendants. All matters relating to the Australia gas pipeline force majeure are concluded. *Apollo Exploration Lawsuit* In a second amended petition filed on February 27, 2015, in a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385^th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs allege damages in excess of $1.1 billion relating to certain purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and areas of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. Apache believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit, and further that plaintiffs’ alleged damages are grossly inflated. Apache will vigorously oppose the claims. *Escheat Audits* There has been no material change with respect to the review of the books and records of the Company and its subsidiaries and related entities by the State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws, since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year. *Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits* In the lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Apache Corporation, No. WAD 389/2013, in the Federal Court of Australia, District of Western Australia, General Division, on the eve of a trial that was to commence on February 9, 2015, plaintiff decided to discontinue his claim. On March 18, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing the case. The lawsuit is concluded in the Company’s favor. In the cases captioned Radhika Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2011 4653 and Pankaj Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2012 01995, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, trial is set to commence in March 2016. Certain Oswal-related proceedings (in which neither the Company nor its subsidiaries are parties) have been cross-vested with these proceedings. The Company and its subsidiaries believe that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and will vigorously oppose them. 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 2014 fiscal year. Environmental Matters As of June 30, 2015, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $62 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2015, 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. With respect to the June 1, 2013, leak of produced water from a below ground pipeline in the Zama Operations area in northern Alberta, the Alberta Energy Regulator has completed its investigation of the incident and issued an administrative penalty to Apache Canada Ltd. in the amount of $16,500 CAD. It is possible that additional discharges in Apache Canada Ltd. operating areas, including in the Zama Operations area, could result in additional government fines or sanction. 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 2014 fiscal year. LNG Divestiture Dispute In respect of the purchase by Woodside of the Wheatstone and Kitimat LNG projects and accompanying upstream oil and gas reserves from the Company and its subsidiaries, the base purchase price is subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of the applicable sale and purchase agreement. Woodside has notified the Company and its subsidiaries that it seeks purchase price adjustments in the net amounts of $175 million (for working capital adjustments) and $214 million (for all other adjustments). To the extent the parties are unable to resolve their differences, the dispute will be referred to an independent accounting expert for final determination under the terms of the applicable sale and purchase agreement. The Company believes that under the terms of the sale and purchase agreements, Woodside’s requests for payment of purchase price adjustments lack merit; therefore, the Company has not recorded a liability associated with this dispute.

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. As of June 30, 2015, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $15 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, 2014.

Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff

No material change in the status of the YPF Sociedad Anónima and Pioneer Natural Resources Company indemnities matters has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 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.

In a case captioned State of Louisiana and the Cameron Parish School Board v. Apache Corporation et al., Docket No. 10-18672, in the 38^th Judicial District Court, Parish of Cameron, State of Louisiana, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration and production activities contaminated plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs claim damages in the range of $7 million to $96 million, depending upon the extent of any remediation that may be ordered. Apache, a defendant in the case, acquired its interest in the oil and gas operations on plaintiffs’ property from the former operator, defendant Davis Oil Company, and subsequently sold the interest to defendant Wagner Oil Company (Wagner). Apache claims indemnity from Wagner. The case is set for trial in November 2015. While an adverse judgment against Apache might be possible, Apache disagrees with plaintiffs’ damage models and will vigorously oppose the claims.

In respect of three lawsuits filed by the Parish of Plaquemines against the Company and other oil and gas producers in the 25^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana (captioned Parish of Plaquemines v. Rozel Operating Company et al., Docket No. 60-996; Parish of Plaquemines v. Apache Oil Corporation et al., Docket No. 61-000; and Parish of Plaquemines v. HHE Energy Company et al., Docket No. 60-983), defendants filed notices to remove the cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, civil action Nos. 13-6722, 13-6711, and 13-6735. Plaintiff’s motions to remand have been granted.

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 2014 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. The civil lawsuits concerning the pipeline explosion, all of which were filed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, have been resolved fully and dismissed on confidential terms, including for an exchange of consideration that is not material to Apache. The lawsuits are described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year. On April 10, 2015, the court dismissed the lawsuits filed by plaintiffs Alcoa (Civ. 1481 of 2011), Barrick (Civ. 2656 of 2013), EDL LNG (Civ. 1751 of 2014), and Yara (Civ. 1742 of 2014). On April 9, 2015, plaintiffs Harvey (Civ. 1749 of 2014), Iluka (Civ. 1748 of 2014), Newmont (Civ. 1727 of 2014), and Wesfarmers (Civ. 1740 of 2014) discontinued their lawsuits, which were never served on the Apache defendants. All matters relating to the Australia gas pipeline force majeure are concluded.

Apollo Exploration Lawsuit

In a second amended petition filed on February 27, 2015, in a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385^th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs allege damages in excess of $1.1 billion relating to certain purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and areas of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. Apache believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit, and further that plaintiffs’ alleged damages are grossly inflated. Apache will vigorously oppose the claims.

Escheat Audits

There has been no material change with respect to the review of the books and records of the Company and its subsidiaries and related entities by the State of Delaware, Department of Finance, Division of Revenue (Unclaimed Property), to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws, since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its 2014 fiscal year.

Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits

In the lawsuit captioned Pankaj Oswal v. Apache Corporation, No. WAD 389/2013, in the Federal Court of Australia, District of Western Australia, General Division, on the eve of a trial that was to commence on February 9, 2015, plaintiff decided to discontinue his claim. On March 18, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing the case. The lawsuit is concluded in the Company’s favor.

In the cases captioned Radhika Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2011 4653 and Pankaj Oswal v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) et al., No. SCI 2012 01995, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, trial is set to commence in March 2016. Certain Oswal-related proceedings (in which neither the Company nor its subsidiaries are parties) have been cross-vested with these proceedings. The Company and its subsidiaries believe that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and will vigorously oppose them. 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 2014 fiscal year.

Environmental Matters

As of June 30, 2015, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $62 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2015, 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.

With respect to the June 1, 2013, leak of produced water from a below ground pipeline in the Zama Operations area in northern Alberta, the Alberta Energy Regulator has completed its investigation of the incident and issued an administrative penalty to Apache Canada Ltd. in the amount of $16,500 CAD. It is possible that additional discharges in Apache Canada Ltd. operating areas, including in the Zama Operations area, could result in additional government fines or sanction.

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 2014 fiscal year.

LNG Divestiture Dispute

In respect of the purchase by Woodside of the Wheatstone and Kitimat LNG projects and accompanying upstream oil and gas reserves from the Company and its subsidiaries, the base purchase price is subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of the applicable sale and purchase agreement. Woodside has notified the Company and its subsidiaries that it seeks purchase price adjustments in the net amounts of $175 million (for working capital adjustments) and $214 million (for all other adjustments). To the extent the parties are unable to resolve their differences, the dispute will be referred to an independent accounting expert for final determination under the terms of the applicable sale and purchase agreement. The Company believes that under the terms of the sale and purchase agreements, Woodside’s requests for payment of purchase price adjustments lack merit; therefore, the Company has not recorded a liability associated with this dispute.