COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
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, 2018, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $39 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, 2017. 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, 2017. Louisiana Restoration As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that operators and working interest owners in the chain of title are liable for environmental damages on the leased premises, including damages measured by the cost of restoration of the leased premises to its original condition, regardless of the value of the underlying property. From time to time restoration lawsuits and claims are resolved by the Company for amounts that are not material to the Company, while new lawsuits and claims are asserted against the Company. With respect to each of the pending lawsuits and claims, the amount claimed is not currently determinable or is not material, except as noted. Further, the overall exposure related to these lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable. While an adverse judgment against Apache is possible, Apache intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims. Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2018, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases have all been removed to federal court after having once been remanded back to state court. 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 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, 2017. Apollo Exploration Lawsuit 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 alleged damages in excess of $200 million (having previously claimed in excess of $1.1 billion) relating to purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and areas of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The Court granted motions filed by Apache reducing the plaintiffs’ alleged damages to an amount that is not material to the Company. Apache believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and 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, 2017. 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 Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, Apache filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the SPA. In its suit, Apache seeks approximately $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to Apache’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately $200 million in the aggregate. The Company believes that Quadrant’s claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity. California Litigation On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo County, California, Marin County, California, and the City of Imperial Beach, California, all filed suit individually and on behalf of the people of the state of California against over 30 oil, gas, and coal companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. On December 20, 2017, in two separate actions, the City of Santa Cruz, California and Santa Cruz County, California and in a separate action on January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, California, filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. The lawsuits were removed to federal court and then consolidated. Although the federal court remanded the lawsuits back to state court, it stayed its order of remand and certified the jurisdictional inquiry for appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Apache believes that the claims made against it are baseless and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Environmental Matters As of September 30, 2018, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $4 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2018, that have not been provided for or that 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. Commitments During the third quarter of 2018, the Company executed a 10-year firm transportation agreement associated with the third-party Permian Highway Pipeline project to transport a minimum of 500,000 MMBtu per day at a fixed rate per MMBtu. The fees will commence when the pipeline accepts first commercial delivery, which is expected to begin service in late 2020, assuming timely receipt of regulatory approvals. Apache has entered into no other material commitments since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

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, 2018, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $39 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, 2017.

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, 2017.

Louisiana Restoration

As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including Apache, claiming that operators and working interest owners in the chain of title are liable for environmental damages on the leased premises, including damages measured by the cost of restoration of the leased premises to its original condition, regardless of the value of the underlying property. From time to time restoration lawsuits and claims are resolved by the Company for amounts that are not material to the Company, while new lawsuits and claims are asserted against the Company. With respect to each of the pending lawsuits and claims, the amount claimed is not currently determinable or is not material, except as noted. Further, the overall exposure related to these lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable. While an adverse judgment against Apache is possible, Apache intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims.

Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2018, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases have all been removed to federal court after having once been remanded back to state court. 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 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, 2017.

Apollo Exploration Lawsuit

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 alleged damages in excess of $200 million (having previously claimed in excess of $1.1 billion) relating to purchase and sale agreements, mineral leases, and areas of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The Court granted motions filed by Apache reducing the plaintiffs’ alleged damages to an amount that is not material to the Company. Apache believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and 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, 2017.

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 Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, Apache filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the SPA. In its suit, Apache seeks approximately $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to Apache’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately $200 million in the aggregate. The Company believes that Quadrant’s claims lack merit and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operation, or liquidity.

California Litigation

On July 17, 2017, in three separate actions, San Mateo County, California, Marin County, California, and the City of Imperial Beach, California, all filed suit individually and on behalf of the people of the state of California against over 30 oil, gas, and coal companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. On December 20, 2017, in two separate actions, the City of Santa Cruz, California and Santa Cruz County, California and in a separate action on January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, California, filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. The lawsuits were removed to federal court and then consolidated. Although the federal court remanded the lawsuits back to state court, it stayed its order of remand and certified the jurisdictional inquiry for appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Apache believes that the claims made against it are baseless and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Environmental Matters

As of September 30, 2018, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $4 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2018, that have not been provided for or that 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.

Commitments

During the third quarter of 2018, the Company executed a 10-year firm transportation agreement associated with the third-party Permian Highway Pipeline project to transport a minimum of 500,000 MMBtu per day at a fixed rate per MMBtu. The fees will commence when the pipeline accepts first commercial delivery, which is expected to begin service in late 2020, assuming timely receipt of regulatory approvals. Apache has entered into no other material commitments since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.