Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
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 March 31, 2017, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $16 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 10—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, 2016. 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, 2016. Louisiana Restoration As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, 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 July 24, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company et al., Case No. 2013-6911 was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in which plaintiff on behalf of itself and as the board governing the levee districts of Orleans, Lake Borgne Basin, and East Jefferson alleged that Louisiana coastal lands have been damaged as a result of oil and gas industry activity, including a network of canals for access and pipelines. The defendants removed the case from state court to federal court and, on February 13, 2015, the federal court entered judgment in favor of defendants dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed the lower court’s dismissal to the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals and additionally challenged the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. On March 3, 2017, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the propriety of federal jurisdiction based in part on Apache’s argument that plaintiff’s state-based claims required a resolution of substantial questions of federal law and also affirmed the dismissal of the action. Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2016, several Parishes in Louisiana have filed lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases are pending in federal and state courts in Louisiana. In these cases, the Parishes, as plaintiffs, allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations in specified fields were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and applicable regulations, rules, orders, and ordinances promulgated or adopted thereunder by the Parish or the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused substantial damage to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged violations of applicable state law within the coastal zone, the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify, and otherwise restore the subject coastal zone as near as practicable to its original condition, and actual restoration of the coastal zone to its original condition. While an adverse judgment against Apache might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously oppose these 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, 2016. 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, 2016. 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, 2016. Environmental Matters As of March 31, 2017, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $51 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of March 31, 2017, 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 affected areas have been or are currently being remediated. 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, 2016. 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.

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, 2017, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $16 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 10—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, 2016.

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, 2016.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, 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 July 24, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company et al., Case No. 2013-6911 was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in which plaintiff on behalf of itself and as the board governing the levee districts of Orleans, Lake Borgne Basin, and East Jefferson alleged that Louisiana coastal lands have been damaged as a result of oil and gas industry activity, including a network of canals for access and pipelines. The defendants removed the case from state court to federal court and, on February 13, 2015, the federal court entered judgment in favor of defendants dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed the lower court’s dismissal to the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals and additionally challenged the defendants’ right to remove the case to federal court. On March 3, 2017, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the propriety of federal jurisdiction based in part on Apache’s argument that plaintiff’s state-based claims required a resolution of substantial questions of federal law and also affirmed the dismissal of the action.

Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2016, several Parishes in Louisiana have filed lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases are pending in federal and state courts in Louisiana. In these cases, the Parishes, as plaintiffs, allege that defendants’ oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation operations in specified fields were conducted in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and applicable regulations, rules, orders, and ordinances promulgated or adopted thereunder by the Parish or the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants caused substantial damage to land and water bodies located in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged violations of applicable state law within the coastal zone, the payment of costs necessary to clear, re-vegetate, detoxify, and otherwise restore the subject coastal zone as near as practicable to its original condition, and actual restoration of the coastal zone to its original condition. While an adverse judgment against Apache might be possible, Apache intends to vigorously oppose these 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, 2016.

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, 2016.

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, 2016.

Environmental Matters

As of March 31, 2017, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $51 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of March 31, 2017, 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 affected areas have been or are currently being remediated. 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, 2016.

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.