COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls, which also may include controls related to the potential impacts of climate change. As of June 30, 2022, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $48 million for all legal contingencies that are deemed to be probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated. The Company’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 the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. For material matters that the Company 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, refer to Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. Argentine Environmental 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 $45 million 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 the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including the Company, 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 adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims. Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2022, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. These cases were all 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 adverse judgments against the Company might be possible, the Company 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 area of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The trial court 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 court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment thereby reinstating some of plaintiff’s claims. Further appeal is pending. Australian Operations Divestiture Dispute Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested Australian operations to Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, the Company filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the Quadrant SPA. In its suit, the Company seeks approximately AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to the Company’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. 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 LTD 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 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 and Delaware 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 and gas 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. After removal of all such lawsuits to federal court, the district court remanded them back to state court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of this remand decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. As a result, the California cases were sent back to the 9th Circuit for further appellate review of the decision to remand the cases to state court. The 9th Circuit has since, once again, affirmed the district court’s remand to state court. The defendants are appealing this latest remand decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Further activity in the cases has been stayed pending further appellate review. On September 10, 2020, the State of Delaware filed suit, individually and on behalf of the people of the State of Delaware, against over 25 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. After removal of this lawsuit to federal court, the district court remanded it back to state court. The remand order is being appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Further activity in the case has been stayed pending this appellate review. The Company believes that it is not subject to jurisdiction of the California courts and that claims made against it in the California and Delaware litigation are baseless. The Company intends to challenge jurisdiction in California and to vigorously defend the Delaware lawsuit. 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 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 Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the judgment, in part, reducing the judgment to approximately $13.5 million, plus fees, costs, and interest against the Company. Further appeal is pending. Oklahoma Class Action The Company is a party to a purported class action in Oklahoma styled Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219. The Allen case seeks to represent a group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other payments under Oklahoma statutes. With no admission of liability or wrongdoing, but only to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation, Apache has entered into a settlement agreement in the Allen case to resolve all claims made against it by the class. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and a full fairness hearing will be held in the coming months. The settlement will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. Shareholder and Derivative Lawsuits On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action, (1) alleges that the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) alleges that the Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) alleges that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) alleges that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On March 16, 2021, a case captioned William Wessels, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al. was filed in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case purports to be a derivative action brought against senior management and Company directors over many of the same allegations included in the Plymouth County Retirement System matter and asserts claims of (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; and (3) unjust enrichment. On March 17, 2022, the trial court granted Defendants’ Special Exceptions and dismissed the claim with prejudice. Environmental Matters As of June 30, 2022, the Company had an undiscounted reserve for environmental remediation of approximately $2 million. On September 11, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following site inspections in April 2019 at several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and has responded to the information request. The EPA has referred the notice for civil enforcement proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. On December 29, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the EPA following helicopter flyovers in September 2019 of several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Reeves County, Texas. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and has responded to the information request. The EPA has referred the notice for civil enforcement proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2022 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. Potential Decommissioning Obligations on Sold Properties In 2013, Apache sold its Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties and its GOM operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Apache received cash consideration of $3.75 billion and Fieldwood assumed the obligation to decommission the properties held by GOM Shelf and the properties acquired from Apache and its other subsidiaries (collectively, the Legacy GOM Assets). In respect of such abandonment obligations, Fieldwood posted letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit) and established trust accounts (Trust A and Trust B) of which Apache was a beneficiary and which were funded by two net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the 2018 bankruptcy, Fieldwood confirmed a plan under which Apache agreed, inter alia, to (i) accept bonds in exchange for certain of the Letters of Credit and (ii) amend the Trust A trust agreement and one of the NPIs to consolidate the trusts into a single Trust (Trust A) funded by both remaining NPIs. Currently, Apache holds two bonds (Bonds) and five Letters of Credit to secure Fieldwood’s asset retirement obligations on the Legacy GOM Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for decommissioning any Legacy GOM Asset over the remaining life of the Legacy GOM Assets. On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood again filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On June 25, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered an order confirming Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan. On August 27, 2021, Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan became effective. Pursuant to the plan, the Legacy GOM Assets were separated into a standalone company, which was subsequently merged into GOM Shelf. Under GOM Shelf’s limited liability company agreement, the proceeds of production of the Legacy GOM Assets will be used to fund decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets. By letter dated April 5, 2022, replacing two prior letters dated September 8, 2021 and February 22, 2022, respectively, GOM Shelf notified the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) that it was unable to fund the decommissioning obligations that it is currently obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOM Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE to decommission certain of the Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification to BSEE. Apache expects to receive such orders on the other Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letter. Further, Apache anticipates that GOM Shelf may send additional such notices to BSEE in the future and that it may receive additional orders from BSEE requiring it to decommission other Legacy GOM Assets. If Apache incurs costs to decommission any Legacy GOM Asset and GOM Shelf does not reimburse Apache for such costs, then Apache expects to obtain reimbursement from Trust A, the Bonds, and the Letters of Credit until such funds and securities are fully utilized. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache has agreed to provide a standby loan to GOM Shelf of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning (Standby Loan Agreement), with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets. If the combination of GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its producing properties, the Trust A funds, the Bonds, and the remaining Letters of Credit are insufficient to fully fund decommissioning of any Legacy GOM Assets that Apache may be ordered by BSEE to perform, or if GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its remaining producing properties after the Trust A funds, Bonds, and Letters of Credit are exhausted is insufficient to repay any loans made by Apache under the Standby Loan Agreement, then Apache may be forced to effectively use its available cash to fund the deficit. As of June 30, 2022, Apache estimates that its potential liability to fund decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets it may be ordered to perform ranges from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion on an undiscounted basis. Management does not believe any specific estimate within this range is a better estimate than any other. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a contingent liability of $1.2 billion as of June 30, 2022, representing the estimated costs of decommissioning it may be required to perform on Legacy GOM Assets. Of the total liability recorded, $825 million is reflected under the caption “Decommissioning contingency for sold Gulf of Mexico properties,” and $350 million is reflected under “Other current liabilities” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. The Company has also recorded a $733 million asset, which represents the amount the Company expects to be reimbursed from the Trust A funds, the Bonds, and the Letters of Credit for decommissioning it may be required to perform on Legacy GOM Assets. Of the total asset recorded, $383 million is reflected under the caption “Decommissioning security for sold Gulf of Mexico properties,” and $350 million is reflected under “Other current assets.” Changes in significant assumptions impacting Apache’s estimated liability, including expected decommissioning rig spread rates, lift boat rates, and planned abandonment logistics could result in a liability in excess of the amount accrued. In addition, significant changes in the market price of oil, gas, and NGLs could further impact Apache’s estimate of its contingent liability to decommission Legacy GOM Assets.

The Company is party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation and governmental and regulatory controls, which also may include controls related to the potential impacts of climate change. As of June 30, 2022, the Company has an accrued liability of approximately $48 million for all legal contingencies that are deemed to be probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated. The Company’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 the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity after consideration of recorded accruals. For material matters that the Company 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.

As more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, Louisiana surface owners often file lawsuits or assert claims against oil and gas companies, including the Company, 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 adverse judgments against the Company are possible, the Company intends to actively defend these lawsuits and claims.

Starting in November of 2013 and continuing into 2022, several parishes in Louisiana have pending lawsuits against many oil and gas producers, including the Company. These cases were all 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 adverse judgments against the Company might be 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 area of mutual interest agreements concerning properties located in Hartley, Moore, Potter, and Oldham Counties, Texas. The trial court 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 court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment thereby reinstating some of plaintiff’s claims. Further appeal is pending.

Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 9, 2015 (Quadrant SPA), the Company and its subsidiaries divested Australian operations to Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd (Quadrant). Closing occurred on June 5, 2015. In April 2017, the Company filed suit against Quadrant for breach of the Quadrant SPA. In its suit, the Company seeks approximately AUD $80 million. In December 2017, Quadrant filed a defense of equitable set-off to the Company’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 LTD 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 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 and gas 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. After removal of all such lawsuits to federal court, the district court remanded them back to state court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of this remand decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. As a result, the California cases were sent back to the 9th Circuit for further appellate review of the decision to remand the cases to state court. The 9th Circuit has since, once again, affirmed the district court’s remand to state court. The defendants are appealing this latest remand decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Further activity in the cases has been stayed pending further appellate review.

On September 10, 2020, the State of Delaware filed suit, individually and on behalf of the people of the State of Delaware, against over 25 oil and gas companies alleging damages as a result of global warming. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. After removal of this lawsuit to federal court, the district court remanded it back to state court. The remand order is being appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Further activity in the case has been stayed pending this appellate review.

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 Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the judgment, in part, reducing the judgment to approximately $13.5 million, plus fees, costs, and interest against the Company. Further appeal is pending.

The Allen case seeks to represent a group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other payments under Oklahoma statutes. With no admission of liability or wrongdoing, but only to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation, Apache has entered into a settlement agreement in the Allen case to resolve all claims made against it by the class. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and a full fairness hearing will be held in the coming months. The settlement will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action, (1) alleges that the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) alleges that the Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) alleges that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company’s operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) alleges that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On March 16, 2021, a case captioned William Wessels, Derivatively and on behalf of APA Corporation v. John J. Christmann IV et al. was filed in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The case purports to be a derivative action brought against senior management and Company directors over many of the same allegations included in the Plymouth County Retirement System matter and asserts claims of (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; and (3) unjust enrichment. On March 17, 2022, the trial court granted Defendants’ Special Exceptions and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

On September 11, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following site inspections in April 2019 at several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and has responded to the information request. The EPA has referred the notice for civil enforcement proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

On December 29, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer, and accompanying Clean Air Act Information Request, from the EPA following helicopter flyovers in September 2019 of several of the Company’s oil and natural gas production facilities in Reeves County, Texas. The notice and information request involve alleged emissions control and reporting violations. The Company is cooperating with the EPA and has responded to the information request. The EPA has referred the notice for civil enforcement proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate whether such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions and, if so, whether they would be more or less than $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Company is not aware of any environmental claims existing as of June 30, 2022 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.

In 2013, Apache sold its Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Shelf operations and properties and its GOM operating subsidiary, GOM Shelf LLC (GOM Shelf) to Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Apache received cash consideration of $3.75 billion and Fieldwood assumed the obligation to decommission the properties held by GOM Shelf and the properties acquired from Apache and its other subsidiaries (collectively, the Legacy GOM Assets). In respect of such abandonment obligations, Fieldwood posted letters of credit in favor of Apache (Letters of Credit) and established trust accounts (Trust A and Trust B) of which Apache was a beneficiary and which were funded by two net profits interests (NPIs) depending on future oil prices. On February 14, 2018, Fieldwood filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the 2018 bankruptcy, Fieldwood confirmed a plan under which Apache agreed, inter alia, to (i) accept bonds in exchange for certain of the Letters of Credit and (ii) amend the Trust A trust agreement and one of the NPIs to consolidate the trusts into a single Trust (Trust A) funded by both remaining NPIs. Currently, Apache holds two bonds (Bonds) and five Letters of Credit to secure Fieldwood’s asset retirement obligations on the Legacy GOM Assets as and when Apache is required to perform or pay for decommissioning any Legacy GOM Asset over the remaining life of the Legacy GOM Assets.

On August 3, 2020, Fieldwood again filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On June 25, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered an order confirming Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan. On August 27, 2021, Fieldwood’s bankruptcy plan became effective. Pursuant to the plan, the Legacy GOM Assets were separated into a standalone company, which was subsequently merged into GOM Shelf. Under GOM Shelf’s limited liability company agreement, the proceeds of production of the Legacy GOM Assets will be used to fund decommissioning of Legacy GOM Assets.

By letter dated April 5, 2022, replacing two prior letters dated September 8, 2021 and February 22, 2022, respectively, GOM Shelf notified the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) that it was unable to fund the decommissioning obligations that it is currently obligated to perform on certain of the Legacy GOM Assets. As a result, Apache and other current and former owners in these assets have received orders from BSEE to decommission certain of the Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification to BSEE. Apache expects to receive such orders on the other Legacy GOM Assets included in GOM Shelf’s notification letter. Further, Apache anticipates that GOM Shelf may send additional such notices to BSEE in the future and that it may receive additional orders from BSEE requiring it to decommission other Legacy GOM Assets.

If Apache incurs costs to decommission any Legacy GOM Asset and GOM Shelf does not reimburse Apache for such costs, then Apache expects to obtain reimbursement from Trust A, the Bonds, and the Letters of Credit until such funds and securities are fully utilized. In addition, after such sources have been exhausted, Apache has agreed to provide a standby loan to GOM Shelf of up to $400 million to perform decommissioning (Standby Loan Agreement), with such standby loan secured by a first and prior lien on the Legacy GOM Assets.

If the combination of GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its producing properties, the Trust A funds, the Bonds, and the remaining Letters of Credit are insufficient to fully fund decommissioning of any Legacy GOM Assets that Apache may be ordered by BSEE to perform, or if GOM Shelf’s net cash flow from its remaining producing properties after the Trust A funds, Bonds, and Letters of Credit are exhausted is insufficient to repay any loans made by Apache under the Standby Loan Agreement, then Apache may be forced to effectively use its available cash to fund the deficit.