Apache is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $21 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.

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 $45 million pursuant to the terms and conditions of stock purchase agreements entered in 2006 between Company subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Pioneer.

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. 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 of 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.

Apache is a party to two class actions in Oklahoma styled Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219. The Rhea case has been certified, and the appeal of the certification was recently denied. The case includes a class of royalty owners seeking damages of over $100 million for alleged breach of the implied covenant to market relating to post-production deductions and NGL uplift value. The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners who have allegedly received late payments under Oklahoma statutes. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. While an adverse judgment against the Company is possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and claims.

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.

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, 2019, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $2 million. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of December 31, 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.

On January 1, 2019, Apache adopted ASU 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” which requires lessees to recognize separate right-of-use (ROU) assets and lease liabilities for most leases classified as operating leases under previous GAAP. Prior to adoption, the FASB issued transition guidance permitting an entity the option to not evaluate under ASU 2016-02 those existing or expired land easements that were not previously accounted for as leases, as well as an option to apply the provisions of the new standard at its adoption date instead of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. Apache elected both transitional practical expedients. Under these transition options, comparative reporting was not required, and the provisions of the standard were applied prospectively to leases in effect at the date of adoption.

As allowed under the standard, the Company also applied practical expedients to carry forward its historical assessments of whether existing agreements contain a lease, classification of existing lease agreements, and treatment of initial direct lease costs. Apache also elected to exclude short-term leases (those with terms of 12 months or less) from the balance sheet presentation and accounts for non-lease and lease components as a single lease component for all asset classes. Short-term lease expense in 2019 was $18 million, primarily related to drilling activities in Block 58 offshore Suriname.

The Company determines if an arrangement is an operating or finance lease at the inception of each contract. If the contract is classified as an operating lease, Apache records an ROU asset and corresponding liability reflecting the total remaining present value of fixed lease payments over the expected term of the lease agreement. The expected term of the lease may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. If the Company’s lease does not provide an implicit rate in the contract, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate when calculating the present value. In the normal course of business, Apache enters into various lease agreements for real estate, drilling rigs, vessels, aircraft, and equipment related to its exploration and development activities, which are typically classified as operating leases under the provisions of the standard. ROU assets are reflected within “Deferred charges and other” within “Other” assets on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet, and the associated operating lease liabilities are reflected within “Other current liabilities” and “Other” within “Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities,” as applicable.

Operating lease expense associated with ROU assets is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Lease expense is reflected on the statement of consolidated operations commensurate with the leased activities and nature of the services performed. Gross fixed operating lease expense, inclusive of amounts billable to partners and other working interest owners, was $222 million in 2019.

In addition, the Company periodically enters into finance leases that are similar to those leases classified as capital leases under previous GAAP. Finance lease assets are included in “Other” within “Property and Equipment” on the consolidated balance sheet, and the associated finance lease liabilities are reflected within “Current debt” and “Long-term debt,” as applicable. Prior periods include the reclassification of $39 million finance lease obligations from “Other” within “Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities” to “Long-term debt” on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet to conform with this presentation. There was no material impact to the Company’s statement of consolidated operations and statement of consolidated cash flows for its treatment of finance leases. Depreciation on the Company’s finance lease assets was $7 million in 2019. Interest on the Company’s finance lease assets was $3 million in 2019.



Net Minimum Commitments⁽¹⁾	Operating Leases⁽²⁾			Finance Leases⁽³⁾			Purchase Obligations⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾
	(In millions)
2020	$	165		$	13		$	152
2021	82			3			191
2022	50			3			181
2023	33			3			213
2024	27			3			195
Thereafter	32			37			910
Total future minimum payments	389			62			$	1,842
Less: imputed interest	(23		)	(14		)	N/A
Total lease liabilities	366			48			N/A
Current portion	169			11			N/A
Non-current portion	$	197		$	37		N/A

The lease liability reflected in the table above represents the Company’s fixed minimum payments that are settled in accordance with the lease terms. Actual lease payments during the period may also include variable lease components such as common area maintenance, usage-based sales taxes and rate differentials, or other similar costs that are not determinable at the inception of the lease. Gross variable lease payments, inclusive of amounts billable to partners and other working interest owners in 2019 was $78 million.



	Operating Leases⁽¹⁾		Finance Leases⁽²⁾
	(In millions)
Year ended December 31, 2018
2019	$	61	$	1
2020-2021	64		3
2022-2023	53		4
2024 & Beyond	42		32
Total	$	220	$	40

Year ended December 31, 2017
2018	$	54	$	1
2019-2020	81		3
2021-2022	57		3
2023 & Beyond	41		34
Total	$	233	$	41

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 and $18 million as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.