XML 76 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.3
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
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, 2019, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $19 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 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, 2018.
Argentine Environmental Claims and Argentina Tariff
No material change in the status of the YPF Sociedad Anónima indemnities matter has occurred since the filing of Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Regarding the Pioneer Natural Resources Company indemnities matter, Company subsidiaries, on one hand, and Pioneer Natural Resources Company and TDF Holdings Company LDC, on the other, have settled and voluntarily dismissed certain indemnity-related claims against each other in a case captioned
Apache Corporation, et al. v. Pioneer Natural Resources Co., et al., Cause No. 2014-64407, pending in the 189th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas. Company subsidiaries retain certain rights to enforce certain Argentina-related indemnification obligations against Pioneer pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Pioneer.
Louisiana Restoration 
As more fully described in Apache’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, 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 the Company is possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims.
Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2019, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including Apache. These cases were all removed to federal courts in Louisiana. Some of the cases have been remanded to state court with the remand orders being appealed. Other of the cases have been stayed pending appeal. 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 the Company is possible, the Company 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, 2018.
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 recently entered final judgment in favor of the Company, ruling that the plaintiffs take nothing by their claims and awarding the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have appealed. 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, 2018.
Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute
Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant 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 Quadrant 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.
Canadian Operations Divestiture Dispute
Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2017 (Paramount SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested their remaining Canadian operations to Paramount Resources LTD (Paramount). Closing occurred on August 16, 2017. On September 11, 2019, four ex-employees of Apache Canada on behalf of themselves and individuals employed by Apache Canada LTD on July 6, 2017, filed an Amended Statement of Claim in a matter styled Stephen Flesch et. al. v Apache Corporation et. al. No. 1901-09160 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against the Company and others seeking class certification and a finding that the Paramount SPA amounted to a Change of Control of the Company, entitling them to accelerated vesting under the Company’s
equity plans. In the suit, the purported class seeks approximately $60 million USD and punitive damages. The Company believes that Plaintiffs’ 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. The Company believes that the claims made against it are baseless and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.
Castex Lawsuit
In a case styled Apache Corporation v. Castex Offshore, Inc, et. al., Cause No. 2015-48580, in the 113th 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. After a jury trial, a verdict of approximately $60 million, plus fees, costs and interest was entered against the Company. The Company is appealing.
Environmental Matters
As of September 30, 2019, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $3 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of September 30, 2019 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.