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. The Company has an accrued liability of approximately $35 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.

Argentine Claims

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, 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) in an amount up to $67.5 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Pioneer.

Louisiana Restoration

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 2017, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases have all been removed to federal 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 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.

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.

Castex Lawsuit

In a case styled Apache Corporation v. Castex Offshore, Inc, et. al., Cause No. 2015-48580, in the 113rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Castex filed claims for alleged damages which they recently disclosed to be approximately $200 million, relating to overspend on the Belle Isle Gas Facility upgrade, and the drilling of five sidetracks on the Potomac #3 Well. A portion of the alleged damages are subject to set off for claims brought by Apache. Trial is set for March 4, 2019. Apache believes Castex’s claims have no merit and will vigorously oppose the claims.

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 AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to Apache’s claim and a counterclaim seeking approximately AUD $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 and Santa Cruz County and in a separate action on January 22, 2018, the City of Richmond, filed similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. On November 14, 2018, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. also filed a similar lawsuit against many of the same defendants. Apache believes that the claims made against it are baseless and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Environmental Matters

The Company, as an owner or lessee and operator of oil and gas properties, is subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign country laws and regulations relating to discharge of materials into, and protection of, the environment. These laws and regulations may, among other things, impose liability on the lessee under an oil and gas lease for the cost of pollution clean-up resulting from operations and subject the lessee to liability for pollution damages. In some instances, the Company may be directed to suspend or cease operations in the affected area. The Company maintains insurance coverage, which it believes is customary in the industry, although the Company is not fully insured against all environmental risks.

Apache manages its exposure to environmental liabilities on properties to be acquired by identifying existing problems and assessing the potential liability. The Company also conducts periodic reviews, on a Company-wide basis, to identify changes in its environmental risk profile. These reviews evaluate whether there is a probable liability, the amount, and the likelihood that the liability will be incurred. The amount of any potential liability is determined by considering, among other matters, incremental direct costs of any likely remediation and the proportionate cost of employees who are expected to devote a significant amount of time directly to any possible remediation effort. As it relates to evaluations of purchased properties, depending on the extent of an identified environmental problem, the Company may exclude a property from the acquisition, require the seller to remediate the property to Apache’s satisfaction, or agree to assume liability for the remediation of the property. The Company’s general policy is to limit any reserve additions to any incidents or sites that are considered probable to result in an expected remediation cost exceeding $300,000. Any environmental costs and liabilities that are not reserved for are treated as an expense when actually incurred. In Apache’s estimation, neither these expenses nor expenses related to training and compliance programs are likely to have a material impact on its financial condition.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $4 million. Apache is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of December 31, 2018 that have not been provided for or would otherwise have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations. 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.

Contractual Obligations

At December 31, 2018, contractual obligations for long-term operating leases, capital leases, and purchase obligations are as follows:



Net Minimum Commitments	Total		2019		2020-2021		2022-2023		2024 & Beyond
	(In millions)
Drilling rigs⁽¹⁾	$	172	$	102	$	69	$	1	$	—
Purchase obligations⁽²⁾	2,323		220		427		445		1,231
Operating lease obligations⁽³⁾	220		61		64		53		42
Capital lease obligations⁽⁴⁾	$	40	$	1	$	3	$	4	$	32
Total Net Minimum Commitments⁽⁵⁾	$	2,755	$	384	$	563	$	503	$	1,305


(1)	Payments associated with the drilling of exploratory wells and development wells net of amounts billed to partners will be capitalized as a component of oil and gas properties, and either depreciated, impaired, or written off as exploration expense.

(2)

Amounts represent any agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms. These include minimum commitments associated with take-or-pay contracts, NGL processing agreements, drilling work program commitments, and agreements to secure capacity rights on third-party pipelines. Includes amounts related to firm transportation capacity on the Gulf Coast Express Pipeline Project (GCX Project), expected to be in service in the fourth quarter of 2019, and the Permian Highway Pipeline Project, expected to be in service in the fourth quarter of 2020. Amounts exclude certain product purchase obligations related to marketing and trading activities for which there are no minimum purchase requirements or the amounts are not fixed or determinable.


(3)	Amounts include long-term lease payments for office space, aircraft, supply and standby vessels, land leases, and equipment related to exploration, development, and production activities.


(4)	This represents the Company’s capital lease obligation related to its Midland, Texas office building. The imputed interest rate necessary to reduce the net minimum lease payments to present value of the lease term is 4.4 percent or $16 million as of December 31, 2018.


(5)	Excludes purchase commitments for jointly owned fields and facilities for which the Company is not the operator.

The table above includes leases for buildings, facilities, and related equipment with varying expiration dates through 2042. Total rent expense, net of amounts capitalized and sublease income, for continuing operations was $76 million, $82 million, and $59 million for 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. Costs incurred under take-or-pay and throughput obligations were $132 million, $134 million, and $86 million for 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.