Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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 September 30, 2016, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $38 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 9—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, 2015. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Louisiana Restoration As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, numerous surface owners have filed claims or sent demand letters to various oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that, under either express or implied lease terms or Louisiana law, the companies 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. On or about September 29, 2016, in a case captioned The Parish of St. Bernard v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al, Docket No. 16-1228, in the 34^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St Bernard, State of Louisiana plaintiff asserts coastal zone claims against the Company and various other oil and gas producers. The claims by St. Bernard Parish are similar to the claims filed previously in lawsuits filed by the Parish of Plaquemines against the Company and other oil and gas producers in the 25th 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). In Cameron Parish in the Parish’s 38^th Judicial District Court, (captioned Parish of Cameron v. BEPCO, L.P., et al., Docket No. 10-19572; Parish of Cameron v. BP America Production Company et al., Docket No. 10-19576; Parish of Cameron v. Apache Corporation (of Delaware) et al., Docket No. 10-19579; Parish of Cameron v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Docket No. 10-19577; Parish of Cameron v. Alpine Exploration Companies, Inc., et al., Docket No. 10-19580; and Parish of Cameron v. Auster Oil and Gas, Inc., et al, Docket No. 10-19582) and in Vermillion Parish (captioned Keith Stutes, District Attorney for the 15th Judicial District of the State of Louisiana v. Gulfport Energy Corporation et al., Docket No. 102156, in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion, State of Louisiana). The cases in Vermillion Parish and in Cameron Parish have all been removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, subject to any effort by the plaintiffs to remand the proceedings to state court. The Louisiana Attorney general and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources have intervened in the coastal zone cases. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Apollo Exploration Lawsuit In a fourth amended petition filed on March 21, 2016, in a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs have reduced their alleged damages to approximately $500 million (having previously claimed 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, even as amended, are grossly inflated. Apache will vigorously oppose the claims. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. 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 (Unclaimed Property), to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws, since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits 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 commenced on May 30, 2016. Apache Corporation, Apache Energy Limited (now known as Quadrant Energy Australia Limited), and Apache Northwest Pty Ltd (now known as Quadrant Northwest Pty Ltd) reached a settlement on confidential terms with each of the plaintiffs and related entities. All other remaining defendants then reached a settlement on confidential terms with each of the plaintiffs and related entities. Environmental Matters As of September 30, 2016, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $55 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2016, 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. Apache Canada Ltd. (ACL) reported a produced water release from a water injection pipeline in a remote area of the Belloy Field that occurred on or about May 4, 2016 and a hydrogen sulfide and oil emulsion leak in the Zama area on or about September 17, 2016. The causes of these incidents remain under investigation. With respect to previous releases of produced water that occurred in the Zama area between October 3 and October 25, 2013 and in the Belloy Field on or about January 20, 2014, the Company has resolved all of the charges associated with these releases with the Crown and paid a fine of $350,000. The Company does not expect the economic impact of any of these incidents to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute By a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (“SPA”), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Australian operations to Viraciti Energy Pty Ltd, which has since been renamed Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (“Quadrant”). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. By letter dated June 6, 2016, Quadrant provided the Company with a one-year placeholder notice of claim under the SPA concerning tax and other issues totaling approximately $200 million in the aggregate. The Company is in the process of reviewing the issues raised by Quadrant and believes at this time that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity. LNG Divestiture Dispute A number of disputes had arisen between the Company and Woodside Energy Ltd. (and all relevant Australian and Canadian subsidiaries) arising from Woodside’s purchase of the Wheatstone and Kitimat LNG projects and accompanying upstream oil and gas reserves from the Company and its subsidiaries. These disputes resulted in various lawsuits being filed in both the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Case Nos. 2315 of 2015, 2798 of 2015, 1504 of 2016, 1520 of 2016, and 1521 of 2016) and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary (Case No. 1601-12909) concerning or arising out of certain provisions of the Wheatstone and Kitimat sale and purchase agreements. In addition, certain other disputes under the parties’ sale and purchase agreements had been referred to the ICC International Centre for ADR for a third party expert determination. With respect to each of the matters pending in Western Australia, Alberta, and before the ICC, the Company and Woodside have reached a settlement on confidential terms such that the matters will be discontinued and/or dismissed and mutual releases have been provided by the Company and Woodside related to the foregoing matters in dispute. The amount of the settlement has been included in the Company’s accrued liabilities for legal contingencies as of September 30, 2016.

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 September 30, 2016, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $38 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 9—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, 2015.

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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, numerous surface owners have filed claims or sent demand letters to various oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that, under either express or implied lease terms or Louisiana law, the companies 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.

On or about September 29, 2016, in a case captioned The Parish of St. Bernard v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al, Docket No. 16-1228, in the 34^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St Bernard, State of Louisiana plaintiff asserts coastal zone claims against the Company and various other oil and gas producers. The claims by St. Bernard Parish are similar to the claims filed previously in lawsuits filed by the Parish of Plaquemines against the Company and other oil and gas producers in the 25th 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). In Cameron Parish in the Parish’s 38^th Judicial District Court, (captioned Parish of Cameron v. BEPCO, L.P., et al., Docket No. 10-19572; Parish of Cameron v. BP America Production Company et al., Docket No. 10-19576; Parish of Cameron v. Apache Corporation (of Delaware) et al., Docket No. 10-19579; Parish of Cameron v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Docket No. 10-19577; Parish of Cameron v. Alpine Exploration Companies, Inc., et al., Docket No. 10-19580; and Parish of Cameron v. Auster Oil and Gas, Inc., et al, Docket No. 10-19582) and in Vermillion Parish (captioned Keith Stutes, District Attorney for the 15th Judicial District of the State of Louisiana v. Gulfport Energy Corporation et al., Docket No. 102156, in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion, State of Louisiana). The cases in Vermillion Parish and in Cameron Parish have all been removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, subject to any effort by the plaintiffs to remand the proceedings to state court. The Louisiana Attorney general and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources have intervened in the coastal zone cases.

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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Apollo Exploration Lawsuit

In a fourth amended petition filed on March 21, 2016, in a case captioned Apollo Exploration, LLC, Cogent Exploration, Ltd. Co. & SellmoCo, LLC v. Apache Corporation, Cause No. CV50538 in the 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas, plaintiffs have reduced their alleged damages to approximately $500 million (having previously claimed 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, even as amended, are grossly inflated. Apache will vigorously oppose the claims. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

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 (Unclaimed Property), to determine compliance with the Delaware Escheat Laws, since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Burrup-Related Gas Supply Lawsuits

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 commenced on May 30, 2016. Apache Corporation, Apache Energy Limited (now known as Quadrant Energy Australia Limited), and Apache Northwest Pty Ltd (now known as Quadrant Northwest Pty Ltd) reached a settlement on confidential terms with each of the plaintiffs and related entities. All other remaining defendants then reached a settlement on confidential terms with each of the plaintiffs and related entities.

Environmental Matters

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $55 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2016, 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.

Apache Canada Ltd. (ACL) reported a produced water release from a water injection pipeline in a remote area of the Belloy Field that occurred on or about May 4, 2016 and a hydrogen sulfide and oil emulsion leak in the Zama area on or about September 17, 2016. The causes of these incidents remain under investigation. With respect to previous releases of produced water that occurred in the Zama area between October 3 and October 25, 2013 and in the Belloy Field on or about January 20, 2014, the Company has resolved all of the charges associated with these releases with the Crown and paid a fine of $350,000. The Company does not expect the economic impact of any of these incidents to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. 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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute

By a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (“SPA”), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Australian operations to Viraciti Energy Pty Ltd, which has since been renamed Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (“Quadrant”). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. By letter dated June 6, 2016, Quadrant provided the Company with a one-year placeholder notice of claim under the SPA concerning tax and other issues totaling approximately $200 million in the aggregate. The Company is in the process of reviewing the issues raised by Quadrant and believes at this time that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity.

LNG Divestiture Dispute

A number of disputes had arisen between the Company and Woodside Energy Ltd. (and all relevant Australian and Canadian subsidiaries) arising from Woodside’s purchase of the Wheatstone and Kitimat LNG projects and accompanying upstream oil and gas reserves from the Company and its subsidiaries. These disputes resulted in various lawsuits being filed in both the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Case Nos. 2315 of 2015, 2798 of 2015, 1504 of 2016, 1520 of 2016, and 1521 of 2016) and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary (Case No. 1601-12909) concerning or arising out of certain provisions of the Wheatstone and Kitimat sale and purchase agreements. In addition, certain other disputes under the parties’ sale and purchase agreements had been referred to the ICC International Centre for ADR for a third party expert determination. With respect to each of the matters pending in Western Australia, Alberta, and before the ICC, the Company and Woodside have reached a settlement on confidential terms such that the matters will be discontinued and/or dismissed and mutual releases have been provided by the Company and Woodside related to the foregoing matters in dispute. The amount of the settlement has been included in the Company’s accrued liabilities for legal contingencies as of September 30, 2016.